Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ring-buffer: Introducing ring-buffer mapping functions

[Vincent Donnefort]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:03:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:19:44 +0100
> Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > I've been playing with this a bit, and I'm thinking, do we need the
> > > data_pages[] array on the meta page?
> > > 
> > > I noticed that I'm not even using it.
> > > 
> > > Currently, we need to do a ioctl every time we finish with the reader page,
> > > and that updates the reader_page in the meta data to point to the next page
> > > to read. When do we need to look at the data_start section?  
> > 
> > This is for non-consuming read, to get all the pages in order.
> 
> Yeah, I was trying to see how a non consuming read would work, and was
> having issues figuring that out without the tail page being updated.

Would the userspace really need to know where is the tail page? It can just stop
whenever it finds out a page doesn't have any events, and make sure it does not
loop once back to the head?

> 
> > 
> > If we remove this section we would lose this ability ... but we'd also simplify
> > the code by a good order of magnitude (don't need the update ioctl anymore, no
> > need to keep those pages in order and everything can fit a 0-order meta-page).
> > And the non-consuming read doesn't bring much to the user over the pipe version.
> > 
> > This will although impact our hypervisor tracing which will only be able to
> > expose trace_pipe interfaces. But I don't think it is a problem, all userspace
> > tools only relying on consuming read anyway.
> > 
> > So if you're happy dropping this support, let's get rid of it.
> 
> I don't really want to get rid of it, but perhaps break it up where we
> don't have it in the first release, but add it in a second one. That will
> also make sure that we can expand the API if necessary (one reason I wanted
> the "data_start" in the first place).
> 
> Let's drop it for now, but be able to add it later, an have the current
> structure be:

Ok, I will prepare a V3 accordingly.

> 
> struct ring_buffer_meta_page_header {
> #if __BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> 	__u64	entries;
> 	__u64	overrun;
> #else
> 	__u32	entries;
> 	__u32	overrun;
> #endif
> 	__u32	pages_touched;
> 	__u32	meta_page_size;
> 	__u32	reader_page;	/* page ID for the reader page */
> 	__u32	nr_data_pages;	/* doesn't take into account the reader_page */
> };
> 
> BTW, shouldn't the nr_data_pages take into account the reader page? As it
> is part of the array we traverse isn't it?

It depends if the reader page has ever been swapped out. If yes, the reader
would have to start from reader_page and then switch to the data_pages.
Which sounds like a fiddly interface for the userspace.

So yeah, consuming-read only feels like a better start.

> 
> -- Steve