lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory failure
----- On Jan 27, 2021, at 1:07 PM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:00:46 -0500 (EST)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>
>> > Instead of allocating a new array for removing a tracepoint, allocate twice
>> > the needed size when adding tracepoints to the array. On removing, use the
>> > second half of the allocated array. This removes the need to allocate memory
>> > for removing a tracepoint, as the allocation for removals will already have
>> > been done.
>>
>> I don't see how this can work reliably. AFAIU, with RCU, approaches
>> requiring a pre-allocation of twice the size and swapping to the alternate
>> memory area on removal falls apart whenever you remove 2 or more elements
>> back-to-back without waiting for a grace period.
>
> Good point ;-)
>
>>
>> How is this handled by your scheme ?
>
> I believe we can detect this case using the "prio" part of extra element,
> and force a rcu sync if there's back to back removals on the same
> tracepoint. That case does not happen often, so I'm hoping nobody will
> notice the slowdown with these syncs. I'll take a look at this.
>
> Thanks for bringing that up.

Requiring an RCU synchronize on element removal is quite intrusive, and can
be problematic if tracepoint removal is called from e.g. preempt-off context.

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-27 19:16    [W:0.042 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site