[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240301104945.43119349@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:49:45 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: linke <lilinke99@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: use READ_ONCE() to read
cpu_buffer->commit_page in concurrent environment
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 13:37:18 +0800
linke <lilinke99@...com> wrote:
> > So basically you are worried about read-tearing?
> >
> > That wasn't mentioned in the change log.
>
> Yes. Sorry for making this confused, I am not very familiar with this and
> still learning.
No problem. We all have to learn this anyway.
>
> > Funny part is, if the above timestamp read did a tear, then this would
> > definitely not match, and would return the correct value. That is, the
> > buffer is not empty because the only way for this to get corrupted is if
> > something is in the process of writing to it.
>
> I agree with you here.
>
> commit = rb_page_commit(commit_page);
>
> But if commit_page above is the result of a torn read, the commit field
> read by rb_page_commit() may not represent a valid value.
But commit_page is a word length, and I will argue that any compiler that
tears "long" words is broken. ;-)
>
> In this case, READ_ONCE() is only needed for the commit_page.
But we can at least keep the READ_ONCE() on the commit_page just because it
is used in the next instruction.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists