[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100118164128.GI10364@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:41:30 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf_event: fix race in
perf_swevent_get_recursion_context()
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:42:34PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> It only disable preemption in perf_swevent_get_recursion_context()
> it can't avoid race of hard-irq and NMI
>
> In this patch, we use atomic operation to avoid it and reduce
> cpu_ctx->recursion size, it also make this patch no need diable
> preemption
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
I don't understand what is racy in what we have currently.
> int perf_swevent_get_recursion_context(void)
> {
> - struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = &get_cpu_var(perf_cpu_context);
> + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = &__get_cpu_var(perf_cpu_context);
> int rctx;
>
> if (in_nmi())
> @@ -3933,13 +3933,8 @@ int perf_swevent_get_recursion_context(void)
> else
> rctx = 0;
>
> - if (cpuctx->recursion[rctx]) {
> - put_cpu_var(perf_cpu_context);
> + if (test_and_set_bit(rctx, &cpuctx->recursion))
> return -1;
This looks broken. We don't call back perf_swevent_put_recursion_context
in fail case, so the bit won't ever be cleared once we recurse.
--
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