On 9/15/2020 6:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:38:03 +0530
Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +void ring_buffer_mutex_release(struct trace_buffer *buffer)
>>> +{
>>> + mutex_unlock(&buffer->mutex);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ring_buffer_mutex_release);
>
> I really do not like to export these.
>
Actually available reader lock is not helping
here(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock), So i took ring buffer mutex lock to
resolve this(this came on 4.19/5.4), in latest tip it is trace buffer
lock. Due to this i have exported api.
I'm saying, why don't you take the buffer->mutex in the
ring_buffer_reset_online_cpus() function? And remove all the protection in
tracing_reset_online_cpus()?
Yes, got your point. then we can avoid export. Actually we are seeing
issue in older kernel like 4.19/4.14/5.4 and there below patch was not
present in stable branches:
ommit b23d7a5f4a07 ("ring-buffer: speed up buffer resets by
> avoiding synchronize_rcu for each CPU")
Actually i have also thought to take mutex lock in ring_buffer_reset_cpu
while doing individual cpu reset, but this could cause another problem:
Different cpu buffer may have different state, so i have taken lock in
tracing_reset_online_cpus.
void tracing_reset_online_cpus(struct array_buffer *buf)
{
struct trace_buffer *buffer = buf->buffer;
if (!buffer)
return;
buf->time_start = buffer_ftrace_now(buf, buf->cpu);
ring_buffer_reset_online_cpus(buffer);
}
The reset_online_cpus() is already doing the synchronization, we don't need
to do it twice.
I believe commit b23d7a5f4a07 ("ring-buffer: speed up buffer resets by
avoiding synchronize_rcu for each CPU") made the synchronization in
tracing_reset_online_cpus() obsolete.
-- Steve
Yes, with above patch no need to take lock in tracing_reset_online_cpus.
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
