[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230228164346.0691bb11@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:43:46 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ring_buffer: Use try_cmpxchg instead of cmpxchg
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:59:29 +0100
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> Use try_cmpxchg instead of cmpxchg (*ptr, old, new) == old.
> x86 CMPXCHG instruction returns success in ZF flag, so this change
> saves a compare after cmpxchg (and related move instruction in
> front of cmpxchg).
>
> Also, try_cmpxchg implicitly assigns old *ptr value to "old" when cmpxchg
> fails. There is no need to re-read the value in the loop.
>
> No functional change intended.
As I mentioned in the RCU thread, I have issues with some of the changes
here.
>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 20 ++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index 4188af7d4cfe..8f0ef7d12ddd 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -1493,14 +1493,11 @@ static bool rb_head_page_replace(struct buffer_page *old,
> {
> unsigned long *ptr = (unsigned long *)&old->list.prev->next;
> unsigned long val;
> - unsigned long ret;
>
> val = *ptr & ~RB_FLAG_MASK;
> val |= RB_PAGE_HEAD;
>
> - ret = cmpxchg(ptr, val, (unsigned long)&new->list);
> -
> - return ret == val;
> + return try_cmpxchg(ptr, &val, (unsigned long)&new->list);
No, val should not be updated.
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -2055,7 +2052,7 @@ rb_insert_pages(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer)
> retries = 10;
> success = false;
> while (retries--) {
> - struct list_head *head_page, *prev_page, *r;
> + struct list_head *head_page, *prev_page;
> struct list_head *last_page, *first_page;
> struct list_head *head_page_with_bit;
>
> @@ -2073,9 +2070,8 @@ rb_insert_pages(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer)
> last_page->next = head_page_with_bit;
> first_page->prev = prev_page;
>
> - r = cmpxchg(&prev_page->next, head_page_with_bit, first_page);
> -
> - if (r == head_page_with_bit) {
> + if (try_cmpxchg(&prev_page->next,
> + &head_page_with_bit, first_page)) {
No. head_page_with_bit should not be updated.
> /*
> * yay, we replaced the page pointer to our new list,
> * now, we just have to update to head page's prev
> @@ -4061,10 +4057,10 @@ void ring_buffer_record_off(struct trace_buffer *buffer)
> unsigned int rd;
> unsigned int new_rd;
>
> + rd = atomic_read(&buffer->record_disabled);
> do {
> - rd = atomic_read(&buffer->record_disabled);
> new_rd = rd | RB_BUFFER_OFF;
> - } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&buffer->record_disabled, rd, new_rd) != rd);
> + } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&buffer->record_disabled, &rd, new_rd));
This change is OK.
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ring_buffer_record_off);
>
> @@ -4084,10 +4080,10 @@ void ring_buffer_record_on(struct trace_buffer *buffer)
> unsigned int rd;
> unsigned int new_rd;
>
> + rd = atomic_read(&buffer->record_disabled);
> do {
> - rd = atomic_read(&buffer->record_disabled);
> new_rd = rd & ~RB_BUFFER_OFF;
> - } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&buffer->record_disabled, rd, new_rd) != rd);
> + } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&buffer->record_disabled, &rd, new_rd));
And so is this one.
So I will not take this patch as is.
-- Steve
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ring_buffer_record_on);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists