mirror of
https://github.com/AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002.git
synced 2024-11-25 06:10:54 +07:00
ring-buffer: Do not die if rb_iter_peek() fails more than thrice
As the iterator will be reading a live buffer, and if the event being read is on a page that a writer crosses, it will fail and try again, the condition in rb_iter_peek() that only allows a retry to happen three times is no longer valid. Allow rb_iter_peek() to retry more than three times without killing the ring buffer, but only if rb_iter_head_event() had failed at least once. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200317213416.452888193@goodmis.org Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
785888c544
commit
ff84c50cfb
@ -4012,6 +4012,7 @@ rb_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts)
|
||||
struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer;
|
||||
struct ring_buffer_event *event;
|
||||
int nr_loops = 0;
|
||||
bool failed = false;
|
||||
|
||||
if (ts)
|
||||
*ts = 0;
|
||||
@ -4038,10 +4039,14 @@ rb_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts)
|
||||
* to a data event, we should never loop more than three times.
|
||||
* Once for going to next page, once on time extend, and
|
||||
* finally once to get the event.
|
||||
* (We never hit the following condition more than thrice).
|
||||
* We should never hit the following condition more than thrice,
|
||||
* unless the buffer is very small, and there's a writer
|
||||
* that is causing the reader to fail getting an event.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, ++nr_loops > 3))
|
||||
if (++nr_loops > 3) {
|
||||
RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, !failed);
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (rb_per_cpu_empty(cpu_buffer))
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
@ -4052,8 +4057,10 @@ rb_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
event = rb_iter_head_event(iter);
|
||||
if (!event)
|
||||
if (!event) {
|
||||
failed = true;
|
||||
goto again;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch (event->type_len) {
|
||||
case RINGBUF_TYPE_PADDING:
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user