lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 07/25] printk-rb: add functionality required by printk
On Tue 2019-02-12 15:29:45, John Ogness wrote:
> The printk subsystem needs to be able to query the size of the ring
> buffer, seek to specific entries within the ring buffer, and track
> if records could not be stored in the ring buffer.
>
> diff --git a/lib/printk_ringbuffer.c b/lib/printk_ringbuffer.c
> index c2ddf4cb9f92..ce33b5add5a1 100644
> --- a/lib/printk_ringbuffer.c
> +++ b/lib/printk_ringbuffer.c
> @@ -175,11 +175,16 @@ void prb_commit(struct prb_handle *h)
> head = PRB_WRAP_LPOS(rb, head, 1);
> continue;
> }
> + while (atomic_long_read(&rb->lost)) {
> + atomic_long_dec(&rb->lost);
> + rb->seq++;

The lost-messages handling should be in a separate patch.
At least I do not see any close relation with prb_iter_seek().

I would personally move prb_iter_seek() to the 5th patch that
implements the other get/iterator functions.

On the contrary, the patch adding support for lost messages
should implement a way how to inform the user about lost messages.
E.g. to add a warning when some space becomes available again.

> + }
> e->seq = ++rb->seq;
> head += e->size;
> changed = true;
> }
> atomic_long_set_release(&rb->head, res);
> +
> atomic_dec(&rb->ctx);
>
> if (atomic_long_read(&rb->reserve) == res)
> @@ -486,3 +491,93 @@ int prb_iter_wait_next(struct prb_iterator *iter, char *buf, int size, u64 *seq)
>
> return ret;
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * prb_iter_seek: Seek forward to a specific record.
> + * @iter: Iterator to advance.
> + * @seq: Record number to advance to.
> + *
> + * Advance @iter such that a following call to prb_iter_data() will provide
> + * the contents of the specified record. If a record is specified that does
> + * not yet exist, advance @iter to the end of the record list.
> + *
> + * Note that iterators cannot be rewound. So if a record is requested that
> + * exists but is previous to @iter in position, @iter is considered invalid.
> + *
> + * It is safe to call this function from any context and state.
> + *
> + * Returns 1 on succces, 0 if specified record does not yet exist (@iter is
> + * now at the end of the list), or -EINVAL if @iter is now invalid.
> + */

Do we really need to distinguish when the iterator is invalid and when
we are at the end of the buffer?

It seems that the reaction in both situation always is to call
prb_iter_init(&iter, &printk_rb, &some_seq). I am still a bit
confused what your prb_iter_init() does. Therefore I am not
sure what it is supposed to do.

Anyway, it seems to be typically used when you need to start
from tail. I would personally do something like (based on my code
in reply to 5th patch:

int prb_iter_seek_to_seq(struct prb_iterator *iter, u64 seq)
{
int ret;

ret = prb_iter_tail_entry(iter);

while (!ret && iter->entry->seq != seq)
ret = prb_iter_next_valid_entry(iter);

return ret;
}

When I see it, I would make the functionality more obvious
by renaming:

prb_iter_tail_entry() -> prb_iter_set_tail_entry()


> +int prb_iter_seek(struct prb_iterator *iter, u64 seq)
> +{
> + u64 cur_seq;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* first check if the iterator is already at the wanted seq */
> + if (seq == 0) {
> + if (iter->lpos == PRB_INIT)
> + return 1;
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + if (iter->lpos != PRB_INIT) {
> + if (prb_iter_data(iter, NULL, 0, &cur_seq) >= 0) {
> + if (cur_seq == seq)
> + return 1;
> + if (cur_seq > seq)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* iterate to find the wanted seq */
> + for (;;) {
> + ret = prb_iter_next(iter, NULL, 0, &cur_seq);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> + break;
> +
> + if (cur_seq == seq)
> + break;
> +
> + if (cur_seq > seq) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }

This is a good example why prb_iter_data() and prb_iter_next() is
a weird interface. You need to read the documentation very carefully
to understand the difference (functionality, error codes). At least
for me, it is far from obvious why they are used this way and
if it is correct.

Best Regards,
Petr

> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-18 16:59    [W:0.323 / U:7.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site