linux-kernel - [PATCH] perf: Explain perf_sched

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:01:03 +0300
From:   Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] perf: Explain perf_sched_mutex

To clarify why atomic_inc_return(&perf_sched_events) is not sufficient and
a mutex is needed to order static branch enabling vs the atomic counter
increment, this adds a comment with an short explanation.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
---
 kernel/events/core.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index efe09b8c38..2c8719b635 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -9569,6 +9569,11 @@ static void account_event(struct perf_event *event)
 		inc = true;
 
 	if (inc) {
+		/*
+		 * We need the mutex here because static_branch_enable()
+		 * must complete *before* the perf_sched_count increment
+		 * becomes visible.
+		 */
 		if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&perf_sched_count))
 			goto enabled;
 
-- 
2.14.1