Re: [PATCH 1/6] ring-buffer: Prevent resizing of persistent ring buffer

Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 10:43:12 +0100
Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 09:14:26AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 11:18:08AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:  
> > > On Thu,  6 Aug 2026 22:13:01 +0100
> > > Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Dynamically resizing a persistent ring buffer is not possible. Disable
> > > > the feature.  
> > > 
> > > Is it true? Of course there is meaningless to resize the persistent
> > > ring buffer (because it makes the buffer none-persistent), we are currently
> > > allows user to resize it (like for resizing unused persistent ring buffer)  
> > 
> > __rb_allocate_pages() in ring_buffer_resize() would call for a persistent buffer
> > rb_range_buffer(), which IIUC, is just reusing the same ring buffer pages as the
> > one already in the persistent buffer.  
> 
> I have just tried and if reducing the size works, increasing fails in both
> rb_set_head_page() and rb_insert_pages() with a warning, which I believe is
> expected.
> 
> We could improve that, but it feels like it is a lot of work for a meaningless
> feature which we should just disable?

Resizing a persistent ring buffer to a smaller size may be allowed, but I
see no point in increasing the size. Making it smaller should allow us to
give back a portion of the persistent ring buffer for general usage.

-- Steve
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.