From: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
kernel-team@meta.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ring-buffer: Handle a reader taking the new head in rb_handle_head_page()
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 13:32:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <avRuXVxVrp-Kjiqj@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261110025202.78c8c03a@fedora>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 02:52:02AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2026 09:21:32 +0000
> Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com> wrote:
>
> > > The issue I think you hit was that we have two HEAD pages, when interrupts
> > > come in. That is, we can get a state of:
> > >
> > > --> subbuf --UPDATE--> subbuf --> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf -->
> >
> > How we can end-up in this situation? The cmpxch will only swap HEAD for UPDATE.
>
> The cpu_buffer->head_page is only updated by the reader, when it did its last read.
>
> Let's look at it one at a time:
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf ----> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Then the writer moves the HEAD page around the buffer while there are
> no reads happening
>
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> | tail
> v v
> +--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> | tail
> v v
> +-HEAD-> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Now, I'll break up the update part:
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf --UPDATE--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf --UPDATE--> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> An interrupt comes in and moves the head even more.
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf --UPDATE--> subbuf ----> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Now the reader decides to read again and starts between the UPDATE and the HEAD
>
>
> cpu_buffer->head_page
> tail |
> v v
> +--> subbuf --UPDATE--> subbuf ----> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf ----> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> It finds a page with the HEAD pointer set but not the UPDATE pointer and does a swap!
>
>
> reader_page -----+
> |
> cpu_buffer->head_page |
> tail | |
> v v v
> +--> subbuf --UPDATE--> subbuf ----> subbuf ----> subbuf --HEAD--> subbuf --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Now the commit finishes and moves forward and will even hit a blank
> page but the last write is now on the reader page. This breaks the
> entire integrity of the ring buffer.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> -- Steve
Yes, now I spent more time on it, I believe it makes sense. I looked at what we
could do and I'm trying to use a temporary RB_PAGE_HEAD | RB_PAGE_UPDATE. This
link flag is then only converted to RB_PAGE_HEAD by the outer writer. I believe
this would fix the race entirely... However that means the reader spins as long
as the buffer writing is interrupted, which I admit is far from ideal.
--
Vincent
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-11 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-05 11:12 [PATCH v2] ring-buffer: Handle a reader taking the new head in rb_handle_head_page() Breno Leitao
2026-11-05 11:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-05 20:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-11-09 7:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-11-09 9:21 ` Vincent Donnefort
2026-11-10 7:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-11-11 13:32 ` Vincent Donnefort [this message]
2026-11-12 11:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-11-12 11:51 ` Vincent Donnefort
2026-11-09 13:10 ` Breno Leitao
2026-11-10 7:55 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=avRuXVxVrp-Kjiqj@google.com \
--to=vdonnefort@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srostedt@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.