[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231219185630.054668186@goodmis.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:54:23 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 09/15] tracing: Update snapshot order along with main buffer order
From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
When updating the order of the sub buffers for the main buffer, make sure
that if the snapshot buffer exists, that it gets its order updated as
well.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
kernel/trace/trace.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
index 4dcdc30aa110..2439e00aa4ce 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
@@ -1263,10 +1263,17 @@ static void set_buffer_entries(struct array_buffer *buf, unsigned long val);
int tracing_alloc_snapshot_instance(struct trace_array *tr)
{
+ int order;
int ret;
if (!tr->allocated_snapshot) {
+ /* Make the snapshot buffer have the same order as main buffer */
+ order = ring_buffer_subbuf_order_get(tr->array_buffer.buffer);
+ ret = ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(tr->max_buffer.buffer, order);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
/* allocate spare buffer */
ret = resize_buffer_duplicate_size(&tr->max_buffer,
&tr->array_buffer, RING_BUFFER_ALL_CPUS);
@@ -1286,6 +1293,7 @@ static void free_snapshot(struct trace_array *tr)
* The max_tr ring buffer has some state (e.g. ring->clock) and
* we want preserve it.
*/
+ ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(tr->max_buffer.buffer, 0);
ring_buffer_resize(tr->max_buffer.buffer, 1, RING_BUFFER_ALL_CPUS);
set_buffer_entries(&tr->max_buffer, 1);
tracing_reset_online_cpus(&tr->max_buffer);
@@ -9393,6 +9401,7 @@ buffer_order_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
{
struct trace_array *tr = filp->private_data;
unsigned long val;
+ int old_order;
int ret;
ret = kstrtoul_from_user(ubuf, cnt, 10, &val);
@@ -9403,12 +9412,44 @@ buffer_order_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
if (val < 0 || val > 7)
return -EINVAL;
+ old_order = ring_buffer_subbuf_order_get(tr->array_buffer.buffer);
+ if (old_order == val)
+ return 0;
+
ret = ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(tr->array_buffer.buffer, val);
if (ret)
- return ret;
+ return 0;
- (*ppos)++;
+#ifdef CONFIG_TRACER_MAX_TRACE
+
+ if (!tr->allocated_snapshot)
+ goto out_max;
+ ret = ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(tr->max_buffer.buffer, val);
+ if (ret) {
+ /* Put back the old order */
+ cnt = ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(tr->array_buffer.buffer, old_order);
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cnt)) {
+ /*
+ * AARGH! We are left with different orders!
+ * The max buffer is our "snapshot" buffer.
+ * When a tracer needs a snapshot (one of the
+ * latency tracers), it swaps the max buffer
+ * with the saved snap shot. We succeeded to
+ * update the order of the main buffer, but failed to
+ * update the order of the max buffer. But when we tried
+ * to reset the main buffer to the original size, we
+ * failed there too. This is very unlikely to
+ * happen, but if it does, warn and kill all
+ * tracing.
+ */
+ tracing_disabled = 1;
+ }
+ return ret;
+ }
+ out_max:
+#endif
+ (*ppos)++;
return cnt;
}
--
2.42.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists