[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1258983953.4531.456.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:45:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: eranian@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix validate_event bug
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 14:34 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> > Won't this give very funny results for mixed pmu groups?
> >
>
> What do you mean by 'mixed pmu groups'?
We currently have a number of struct pmu objects:
perf_ops_generic
perf_ops_cpu_clock
perf_ops_task_clock
which are all software based PMUs, and one of:
pmu (arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c)
power_pmu (arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_event.c)
To represent the hardware PMU.
Now say you mix software events and hardware events into a single group,
the loop in validate_group:
list_for_each_entry(sibling, &leader->sibling_list, group_entry) {
if (!validate_event(&fake_pmu, sibling))
return -ENOSPC;
}
could pass a !hardware event into validate_event(), which currently
ignores it because event->pmu won't be &pmu, however if you remove that
check, it'll try and call x86 routines on a software event, which is
bound to go funny.
Now Frederic is going to make things more interesting by representing HW
breakpoints as another HW PMU (the distinction between hw/sw pmu is in
scheduling, you can always schedule a software event).
This weakens the !is_software_event(), in that !software doesn't tell
you which hardware event it is -- something which needs mending in your
more complex x86 constraints scheduling patch.
--
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