Re: [PATCH 3/3] ring-buffer: make cpu buffer entries counteratomic

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 1 May 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 1 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > The entries counter in cpu buffer is not atomic. Although it only 
> > > gets updated by a single CPU, interrupts may come in and update 
> > > the counter too. This would cause missing entries to be added.
> > 
> > > -	unsigned long			entries;
> > > +	atomic_t			entries;
> > 
> > Hm, that's not really good as atomics can be rather expensive and 
> > this is the fastpath.
> 
> Actually, it could be local_t. I used that in a lot of the other places.
> The race is with on CPU not other CPUs, and on archs like x86 there
> is not cost of the "LOCK".

Ug, it must be atomic_t. It is also modified by the reader. Thus it is not 
only a race with a single CPU but also multiple CPUs.

This means that interrupts disabled is not the only proctection it needs. 
It must either be an atomic, or protected by a spinlock.

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/