3.2.56-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rost...@goodmis.org>
commit d651aa1d68a2f0a7ee65697b04c6a92f8c0a12f2 upstream.
Each sub-buffer (buffer page) has a full 64 bit timestamp. The events on
that page use a 27 bit delta against that timestamp in order to save on
bits written to the ring buffer. If the time between events is larger than
what the 27 bits can hold, a "time extend" event is added to hold the
entire 64 bit timestamp again and the events after that hold a delta from
that timestamp.
As a "time extend" is always paired with an event, it is logical to just
allocate the event with the time extend, to make things a bit more efficient.
Unfortunately, when the pairing code was written, it removed the "delta = 0"
from the first commit on a page, causing the events on the page to be
slightly skewed.
Fixes: 69d1b839f7ee "ring-buffer: Bind time extend and data events together"
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>
---
kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -2040,6 +2040,13 @@ __rb_reserve_next(struct ring_buffer_per
write &= RB_WRITE_MASK;
tail = write - length;
+ /*
+ * If this is the first commit on the page, then it has the same
+ * timestamp as the page itself.
+ */
+ if (!tail)
+ delta = 0;
+
/* See if we shot pass the end of this buffer page */
if (unlikely(write > BUF_PAGE_SIZE))
return rb_move_tail(cpu_buffer, length, tail,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
