linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] perf: Free aux pages in unmap path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:20:47 +0200
From:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com, johannes@...solutions.net,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] perf: Free aux pages in unmap path

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

>> How about something like this to stop the writers:
>> 
>> static int __ring_buffer_output_stop(void *info)
>> {
>> 	struct ring_buffer *rb = info;
>> 	struct perf_event *event;
>>  
>> 	spin_lock(&rb->event_lock);
>> 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(event, &rb->event_list, rb_entry) {
>> 		if (event->state != PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE)
>> 			continue;
>> 
>> 		event->pmu->stop(event, PERF_EF_UPDATE);
>> 	}
>> 	spin_unlock(&rb->event_lock);
>> 
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>> 
>> static void perf_event_output_stop(struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> 	struct ring_buffer *rb = event->rb;
>> 
>> 	lockdep_assert_held(&event->mmap_mutex);
>> 
>> 	if (event->cpu == -1)
>> 		perf_event_stop(event);
>> 
>> 	cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __ring_buffer_output_stop, rb);
>
> I'm not sure about the different semantics between event->cpu == -1 and
> not, but yes, something along those likes.

So this also doesn't quite cut it, since we also have children (which
aren't explicitly ring_buffer_attach()ed to the ring buffer, but will
still write there) and in particular children of those events that are
on rb->event_list, which triples the fun of synchronizing and iterating
these.

So I tried a different approach: iterating through pmu's contexts'
instead. Consider the following. 

+static void __perf_event_output_stop(struct perf_event *event, void *data)
+{
+       struct perf_event *parent = event->parent;
+       struct ring_buffer *rb = data;
+
+       if (rcu_dereference(event->rb) == rb)
+               __perf_event_stop(event);
+       if (parent && rcu_dereference(parent->rb) == rb)
+               __perf_event_stop(event);
+}
+
+static int __perf_pmu_output_stop(void *info)
+{
+       struct perf_event *event = info;
+       struct pmu *pmu = event->pmu;
+       struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = get_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
+
+       rcu_read_lock();
+       perf_event_aux_ctx(&cpuctx->ctx, __perf_event_output_stop, event->rb, true);
+       if (cpuctx->task_ctx)
+               perf_event_aux_ctx(cpuctx->task_ctx, __perf_event_output_stop,
+                                  event->rb, true);
+       rcu_read_unlock();
+
+       return 0;
+}
+
+static void perf_pmu_output_stop(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+       int cpu;
+
+       get_online_cpus();
+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+               cpu_function_call(cpu, __perf_pmu_output_stop, event);
+       }
+       put_online_cpus();
+}

And then we just call this perf_pmu_output_stop() from perf_mmap_close()
under mmap_mutex, before rb_free_aux(). Likely going through online cpus
is not necessary, but I'm gonna grab a lunch first.

I also hacked perf_event_aux_ctx() to make the above work, like so:

@@ -5696,15 +5696,18 @@ typedef void (perf_event_aux_output_cb)(struct perf_event *event, void *data);
 static void
 perf_event_aux_ctx(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
                   perf_event_aux_output_cb output,
-                  void *data)
+                  void *data, bool all)
 {
        struct perf_event *event;
 
        list_for_each_entry_rcu(event, &ctx->event_list, event_entry) {
-               if (event->state < PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE)
-                       continue;
-               if (!event_filter_match(event))
-                       continue;
+               if (!all) {
+                       if (event->state < PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE)
+                               continue;
+                       if (!event_filter_match(event))
+                               continue;
+               }
+
                output(event, data);
        }
 }

How does this look to you?

Regards,
--
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/