| Message ID | 20231219185629.179352802@goodmis.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 22887dfba0633c09444562722f0cf68f61ec9a50 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ring-buffer/tracing: Allow ring buffer to have bigger sub buffers | expand |
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:54:20 -0500 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > On failure to allocate ring buffer pages, the pointer to the CPU buffer > pages is freed, but the pages that were allocated previously were not. > Make sure they are freed too. > > Fixes: TBD ("tracing: Set new size of the ring buffer sub page") Do you merge this fix to the original one in the same series later? I think it is better to merge it for git bisect. Thank you, > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org> > --- > kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c > index c2afcf98ea91..3c11e8e811ed 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c > @@ -5927,6 +5927,7 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order) > for_each_buffer_cpu(buffer, cpu) { > if (!cpu_buffers[cpu]) > continue; > + rb_free_cpu_buffer(cpu_buffers[cpu]); > kfree(cpu_buffers[cpu]); > } > kfree(cpu_buffers); > -- > 2.42.0 > >
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 01:23:14 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:54:20 -0500 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > > > On failure to allocate ring buffer pages, the pointer to the CPU buffer > > pages is freed, but the pages that were allocated previously were not. > > Make sure they are freed too. > > > > Fixes: TBD ("tracing: Set new size of the ring buffer sub page") > > Do you merge this fix to the original one in the same series later? > I think it is better to merge it for git bisect. It only fixes the new functionality. If a git bisect gets here for that, then we know the issue already. But it shouldn't break bisect for things that happened before this change. The reason I'm not merging this with the other patch is because the original patch is from Tzvetomir, who isn't working on this anymore. I want to keep his patches untouched, and anything I do is on top of it. -- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c index c2afcf98ea91..3c11e8e811ed 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c @@ -5927,6 +5927,7 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order) for_each_buffer_cpu(buffer, cpu) { if (!cpu_buffers[cpu]) continue; + rb_free_cpu_buffer(cpu_buffers[cpu]); kfree(cpu_buffers[cpu]); } kfree(cpu_buffers);