Re: [PATCH v19 0/7] ring-buffer: Making persistent ring buffers robust

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sat, 2 May 2026 15:23:04 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:

> Hi Masami,
> 
> I applied your patches and enabled your ptracingtest code. I noticed
> that when there's dropped pages, the trace output is not in order:
> 
>  # trace-cmd start -B ptracingtest -e all -v -e '*lock*'
>  # taskset -c 5 echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger
> 
> On reboot, I ran:
> 
>  # trace-cmd show -B ptracingtest > /tmp/trace.out
> 
> Then executed the attached perl program:
> 
>   # ./read-ts.pl < /tmp/trace.out
> 
> And it errors our:
> 
>  30.212495 < 30.213534
>            <...>-1048    [005] d....    30.212495: irq_enable: 
> caller=irqentry_exit+0xf5/0x710 parent=0x0
> 
> That is, I think the zero timestamps may be messing with the order.
> 

Ah, I think I found the problem. The iterator needs the same logic you
added for the consuming read:

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 7bfbed0ac90c..90a7fa772fe3 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -6105,12 +6105,14 @@ rb_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts)
        struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer;
        struct ring_buffer_event *event;
        int nr_loops = 0;
+       int max_loops;
 
        if (ts)
                *ts = 0;
 
        cpu_buffer = iter->cpu_buffer;
        buffer = cpu_buffer->buffer;
+       max_loops = cpu_buffer->ring_meta ? cpu_buffer->nr_pages : 3;
 
        /*
         * Check if someone performed a consuming read to the buffer
@@ -6133,7 +6135,7 @@ rb_iter_peek(struct ring_buffer_iter *iter, u64 *ts)
         * the ring buffer with an active write as the consumer is.
         * Do not warn if the three failures is reached.
         */
-       if (++nr_loops > 3)
+       if (++nr_loops > max_loops)
                return NULL;
 
        if (rb_per_cpu_empty(cpu_buffer))


I'll test this some more, and make a proper patch.

-- Steve