On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 02:14:56 +0800
Yongliang Gao <[email protected]> wrote:

> @@ -271,7 +277,6 @@ int trace_pid_list_next(struct trace_pid_list *pid_list, 
> unsigned int pid,
>  {
>       union upper_chunk *upper_chunk;
>       union lower_chunk *lower_chunk;
> -     unsigned long flags;
>       unsigned int upper1;
>       unsigned int upper2;
>       unsigned int lower;
> @@ -282,27 +287,44 @@ int trace_pid_list_next(struct trace_pid_list 
> *pid_list, unsigned int pid,
>       if (pid_split(pid, &upper1, &upper2, &lower) < 0)
>               return -EINVAL;
>  
> -     raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pid_list->lock, flags);
> -     for (; upper1 <= UPPER_MASK; upper1++, upper2 = 0) {
> -             upper_chunk = pid_list->upper[upper1];
> +     do {
> +             unsigned int start_upper1 = upper1;
> +             unsigned int start_upper2 = upper2;
> +             unsigned int start_lower = lower;
> +             unsigned int seq;
>  
> -             if (!upper_chunk)
> -                     continue;
> +             seq = read_seqcount_begin(&pid_list->seqcount);
>  
> -             for (; upper2 <= UPPER_MASK; upper2++, lower = 0) {
> -                     lower_chunk = upper_chunk->data[upper2];
> -                     if (!lower_chunk)
> +             for (; upper1 <= UPPER_MASK; upper1++, upper2 = 0) {
> +                     upper_chunk = pid_list->upper[upper1];
> +
> +                     if (!upper_chunk)
>                               continue;
>  
> -                     lower = find_next_bit(lower_chunk->data, LOWER_MAX,
> -                                         lower);
> -                     if (lower < LOWER_MAX)
> -                             goto found;
> +                     for (; upper2 <= UPPER_MASK; upper2++, lower = 0) {
> +                             lower_chunk = upper_chunk->data[upper2];
> +                             if (!lower_chunk)
> +                                     continue;
> +
> +                             lower = find_next_bit(lower_chunk->data, 
> LOWER_MAX,
> +                                                 lower);
> +                             if (lower < LOWER_MAX)
> +                                     goto found;
> +                     }
>               }
> -     }
>  
> +             upper1 = UPPER_MASK + 1; /* Mark as not found */
>   found:
> -     raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pid_list->lock, flags);
> +             if (read_seqcount_retry(&pid_list->seqcount, seq)) {
> +                     /* Retry if write happened during read */
> +                     upper1 = start_upper1;
> +                     upper2 = start_upper2;
> +                     lower = start_lower;
> +                     continue;
> +             }
> +             break;
> +     } while (1);
> +
>       if (upper1 > UPPER_MASK)
>               return -1;

Honestly, I wouldn't modify trace_pid_list_next(). It is simply used for
printing of the pids in /sys/kernel/tracing/set_*_pid files. It's not a
critical section, and it shouldn't affect scheduling like
trace_pid_list_is_set() does.

Just keep it taking the raw spin lock, as that will keep it from being
modified by the writers. It also keeps the code from becoming more complex.

-- Steve


Reply via email to