[PATCH 2/6] pstore: Add event tracing support

Sai Prakash Ranjan saiprakash.ranjan at codeaurora.org
Tue Sep 18 14:13:34 PDT 2018


On 9/19/2018 2:14 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
> Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
>>> can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
>>> tracepoints itself. You trace those you just entered an infinite loop.
>>>
>>>    
>>
>> Ok will remove it in v2. But any alternative way to do this?
> 
> I think I describe it below.
> 

Ok got it, will change and post the 2nd version soon.

>>
>>>> +
>>>> +	event_call = fbuffer->trace_file->event_call;
>>>> +	if (!event_call || !event_call->event.funcs ||
>>>> +	    !event_call->event.funcs->trace)
>>>> +		goto fail_event;
>>>> +
>>>> +	event = &fbuffer->trace_file->event_call->event;
>>>> +
>>>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&psinfo->buf_lock, flags);
>>>> +
>>>> +	trace_seq_init(&iter->seq);
>>>> +	iter->ent = fbuffer->entry;
>>>
>>> I guess what you are doing is needing to translate the raw data into
>>> ascii output, and need the trace_iterator to do so.
>>>
>>> You are already under a psinfo->buf_lock. Add a dummy iterator to that
>>> and use it instead.
>>>
>>> 	trace_seq_init(&psinfo->iter->seq);
>>>    
>>>> +	event_call->event.funcs->trace(iter, 0, event);
>>>
>>> 				      (psinfo->iter, 0 , event);
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>    
>>
>> Sure, will update in v2.
>>
>>>> +	trace_seq_putc(&iter->seq, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (seq->size > psinfo->bufsize)
>>>> +		seq->size = psinfo->bufsize;
>>>> +
>>>> +	s = &iter->seq;
>>>> +	seq = &s->seq;
>>>> +
>>>> +	record.buf = (char *)(seq->buffer);
>>>> +	record.size = seq->len;
>>>> +	psinfo->write(&record);
>>>> +
>>>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&psinfo->buf_lock, flags);
>>>
>>> You may also need to convert these spin_locks into raw_spin_locks as
>>> when PREEMPT_RT enters the kernel you don't want them to turn into
>>> mutexes.
>>>
>>> But that can be another patch.
>>>    
>>
>> I will change this in v2, but can't we have it in same patch?
> 
> I suggested a separate patch because buf_lock is used elsewhere.
> Changing it to "raw_spin_lock" will affect more than just what this
> patch series does. Thus, I recommend making it a separate patch to keep
> this patch series from being more intrusive than it needs to be.
> 

Sure, thanks a lot.

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list