On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 03:54:12PM +0800, Junhao He wrote:
[..]
@@ -1341,33 +1339,24 @@ alloc_etr_buf(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata, struct perf_event *event, unsigned long size; node = (event->cpu == -1) ? NUMA_NO_NODE : cpu_to_node(event->cpu);
- /*
* Try to match the perf ring buffer size if it is larger
* than the size requested via sysfs.
*/
- if ((nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) > drvdata->size) {
etr_buf = tmc_alloc_etr_buf(drvdata, ((ssize_t)nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT),
0, node, NULL);
if (!IS_ERR(etr_buf))
goto done;
- }
- /* Use the minimum limit if the required size is smaller */
- size = (unsigned long)nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
Please change the size's type to ssize_t, then:
size = nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
- if (size < TMC_ETR_PERF_MIN_BUF_SIZE)
size = TMC_ETR_PERF_MIN_BUF_SIZE;
size = min_t(ssize_t, size, TMC_ETR_PERF_MIN_BUF_SIZE);
/*
* Else switch to configured size for this ETR
* and scale down until we hit the minimum limit.
* Try to allocate the required size for this ETR, if failed scale
*/* down until we hit the minimum limit.
- size = drvdata->size; do { etr_buf = tmc_alloc_etr_buf(drvdata, size, 0, node, NULL); if (!IS_ERR(etr_buf))
goto done;
size /= 2; } while (size >= TMC_ETR_PERF_MIN_BUF_SIZE);return etr_buf;
Do we really need to scale down buffer size for failure cases?
I would like a straightforward code:
etr_buf = tmc_alloc_etr_buf(drvdata, size, 0, node, NULL); if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(etr_buf)) return etr_buf;
Just a side topic, we know tmc_alloc_etr_buf() should not return NULL pointer. For a sanity check, the callers (alloc_etr_buf(), tmc_etr_get_sysfs_buffer(), etc) should valid a buffer pointer with IS_ERR_OR_NULL() rather than IS_ERR(). This can be a separate patch.
Thanks, Leo
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
-done:
- return etr_buf;
} static struct etr_buf * -- 2.33.0