Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1273718
| From | Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [for-next][PATCH 2/5] tracing: Add set_event_pid directory for future use |
| Date | 2015-11-20 05:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qwLkZ-2dC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qoPF7-5AP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoPF8-5AP-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qwGOm-7Dg-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:24:27 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > +static void *p_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> > +{
> > + struct trace_pid_list *pid_list;
> > + struct trace_array *tr = m->private;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Grab the mutex, to keep calls to p_next() having the same
> > + * tr->filtered_pids as p_start() has.
> > + * If we just passed the tr->filtered_pids around, then RCU would
> > + * have been enough, but doing that makes things more complex.
> > + */
> > + mutex_lock(&event_mutex);
> > + rcu_read_lock_sched();
>
> This looks interesting... You hold the mutex, which I am guessing
> blocks changes. Then why the need for rcu_read_lock_sched()?
Technically you are correct. It's not needed. But I added it more for
documentation :-)
Ideally, we wouldn't need the mutex here. But then we need to pass
around the pid_list which makes it a bit more complex in the seq_file
code than to pass around the tr (where we get pid_list from
tr->filtered_pids).
And we do multiple rcu_dereference_sched()s, and for this code to work
properly (give consistent output), the result should be the same.
Hence, we grab the mutex, to keep the tr->filtered_pids to be
consistent between the rcu_dereference_sched() calls, but since we are
not modifying tr->filtered_pids(), and if we changed this code to do a
single rcu_dereference_sched() and pass around the result, then we
wouldn't need to grab the mutex, and the rcu_read_lock_sched() would be
enough.
I could remove it and change the code to do rcu_dereferenced_lock() but
to me that makes it sound like this code is an update path, which it is
not.
Does this make sense in a crazy way?
-- Steve
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > +
> > + pid_list = rcu_dereference_sched(tr->filtered_pids);
> > +
> > + if (!pid_list || *pos >= pid_list->nr_pids)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + return (void *)&pid_list->pids[*pos];
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void p_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> > +{
> > + rcu_read_unlock_sched();
> > + mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void *
> > +p_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
> > +{
> > + struct trace_array *tr = m->private;
> > + struct trace_pid_list *pid_list = rcu_dereference_sched(tr->filtered_pids);
> > +
> > + (*pos)++;
> > +
> > + if (*pos >= pid_list->nr_pids)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + return (void *)&pid_list->pids[*pos];
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int p_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > +{
> > + pid_t *pid = v;
> > +
> > + seq_printf(m, "%d\n", *pid);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [for-next][PATCH 2/5] tracing: Add set_event_pid directory for future use "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-20 00:30 +0100 Re: [for-next][PATCH 2/5] tracing: Add set_event_pid directory for future use Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2015-11-20 05:20 +0100
csiph-web