linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] ring-buffer: Set new size of the ring buffer sub page

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20231221091101.c518d74654d507af07c53eb1@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:11:01 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.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: Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] ring-buffer: Set new size of the ring buffer
 sub page

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 11:56:02 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 01:34:56 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:54:18 -0500
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: "Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware)" <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > There are two approaches when changing the size of the ring buffer
> > > sub page:
> > >  1. Destroying all pages and allocating new pages with the new size.
> > >  2. Allocating new pages, copying the content of the old pages before
> > >     destroying them.
> > > The first approach is easier, it is selected in the proposed
> > > implementation. Changing the ring buffer sub page size is supposed to
> > > not happen frequently. Usually, that size should be set only once,
> > > when the buffer is not in use yet and is supposed to be empty.
> > > 
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-devel/20211213094825.61876-5-tz.stoyanov@gmail.com
> > >   
> > 
> > OK, this actually reallocate the sub buffers when a new order is set.
> > BTW, with this change, if we set a new order, the total buffer size will be
> > changed too? Or reserve the total size? I think either is OK but it should
> > be described in the document. (e.g. if it is changed, user should set the
> > order first and set the total size later.)
> > 
> 
> Patch 11 keeps the same size of the buffer. As I would think that would be
> what the user would expect. And not only that, it breaks the latency
> tracers if it doesn't keep the same size.

Got it!

Thanks!


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>