ring-buffer: Always check to put back before stamp when crossing pages

The current ring buffer logic checks to see if the updating of the event
buffer was interrupted, and if it is, it will try to fix up the before stamp
with the write stamp to make them equal again. This logic is flawed, because
if it is not interrupted, the two are guaranteed to be different, as the
current event just updated the before stamp before allocation. This
guarantees that the next event (this one or another interrupting one) will
think it interrupted the time updates of a previous event and inject an
absolute time stamp to compensate.

The correct logic is to always update the timestamps when traversing to a
new sub buffer.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: a389d86f ("ring-buffer: Have nested events still record running time stamp")
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
parent 49a962c0
...@@ -3234,14 +3234,12 @@ __rb_reserve_next(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer, ...@@ -3234,14 +3234,12 @@ __rb_reserve_next(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer,
/* See if we shot pass the end of this buffer page */ /* See if we shot pass the end of this buffer page */
if (unlikely(write > BUF_PAGE_SIZE)) { if (unlikely(write > BUF_PAGE_SIZE)) {
if (tail != w) { /* before and after may now different, fix it up*/
/* before and after may now different, fix it up*/ b_ok = rb_time_read(&cpu_buffer->before_stamp, &info->before);
b_ok = rb_time_read(&cpu_buffer->before_stamp, &info->before); a_ok = rb_time_read(&cpu_buffer->write_stamp, &info->after);
a_ok = rb_time_read(&cpu_buffer->write_stamp, &info->after); if (a_ok && b_ok && info->before != info->after)
if (a_ok && b_ok && info->before != info->after) (void)rb_time_cmpxchg(&cpu_buffer->before_stamp,
(void)rb_time_cmpxchg(&cpu_buffer->before_stamp, info->before, info->after);
info->before, info->after);
}
return rb_move_tail(cpu_buffer, tail, info); return rb_move_tail(cpu_buffer, tail, info);
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment