[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243585721.23657.177.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:28:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf_counter: Don't swap contexts containing
locked mutex
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > static struct perf_counter_ctx *pin_ctx(struct perf_counter *counter, u64 *old_gen)
> > {
> > struct perf_counter_context *ctx;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > retry:
> > ctx = rcu_dereference(counter->ctx);
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags);
> > if (ctx != rcu_dereference(counter->ctx))
> > goto retry;
> >
> > *old_gen = ctx->generation;
> > ctx->generation = ~0ULL;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags);
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > return ctx;
> > }
> >
> > static void unpin_ctx(struct perf_counter_ctx *ctx, u64 old_gen)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags);
> > ctx->generation = old_gen;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags);
> > }
>
> OK, I think I got this wrong, counter->ctx isn't the problem.
> task->perf_counter_ctx is.
>
> Still would be nice to write it in the above form. I'll go over the code
> again to see who else might want it.
OK, I went over the code, and your patch does indeed cover the few spots
we need. It was just my brain going haywire and auditing the wrong
pattern.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists