Date:	Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:28:17 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] perf: Fix race in callchains

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:07:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:36 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Now that software events don't have interrupt disabled anymore in
> > the event path, callchains can nest on any context. So seperating
> > nmi and others contexts in two buffers has become racy.
> > 
> > Fix this by providing one buffer per nesting level. Given the size
> > of the callchain entries (2040 bytes * 4), we now need to allocate
> > them dynamically.
> 
> OK so I guess you want to allocate them because 8k per cpu is too much
> to always have about?



Right. I know that really adds complexity and I hesitated much before
doing so. But I think that's quite necessary.


 
> > +static int get_callchain_buffers(void)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +	int err = 0;
> > +	struct perf_callchain_entry_cpus *buf;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(++nr_callchain_events < 1)) {
> > +		err = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto exit;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (nr_callchain_events > 1)
> > +		goto exit;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > +		buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		/* free_event() will clean the rest */
> > +		if (!buf) {
> > +			err = -ENOMEM;
> > +			goto exit;
> > +		}
> > +		buf->entries = alloc_percpu(struct perf_callchain_entry);
> > +		if (!buf->entries) {
> > +			kfree(buf);
> > +			err = -ENOMEM;
> > +			goto exit;
> > +		}
> > +		rcu_assign_pointer(callchain_entries[i], buf);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +exit:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&callchain_mutex);
> > +
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> 
> > +static void put_callchain_buffers(void)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +	struct perf_callchain_entry_cpus *entry;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(--nr_callchain_events < 0))
> > +		goto exit;
> > +
> > +	if (nr_callchain_events > 0)
> > +		goto exit;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > +		entry = callchain_entries[i];
> > +		if (entry) {
> > +			callchain_entries[i] = NULL;
> > +			call_rcu(&entry->rcu_head, release_callchain_buffers);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +exit:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&callchain_mutex);
> > +}
> 
> If you make nr_callchain_events an atomic_t, then you can do the
> refcounting outside the mutex. See the existing user of
> atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock().
> 
> I would also split it in get/put and alloc/free functions for clarity.



Ok I will.




> I'm not at all sure why you're using RCU though.
> 
> > @@ -1895,6 +2072,8 @@ static void free_event(struct perf_event *event)
> >  			atomic_dec(&nr_comm_events);
> >  		if (event->attr.task)
> >  			atomic_dec(&nr_task_events);
> > +		if (event->attr.sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN)
> > +			put_callchain_buffers();
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (event->buffer) {
> 
> If this was the last even, there's no callchain user left, so nobody can
> be here:
> 
> > @@ -3480,14 +3610,20 @@ static void perf_event_output(struct perf_event *event, int nmi,
> >  	struct perf_output_handle handle;
> >  	struct perf_event_header header;
> >  
> > +	/* protect the callchain buffers */
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +
> >  	perf_prepare_sample(&header, data, event, regs);
> >  
> >  	if (perf_output_begin(&handle, event, header.size, nmi, 1))
> > -		return;
> > +		goto exit;
> >  
> >  	perf_output_sample(&handle, &header, data, event);
> >  
> >  	perf_output_end(&handle);
> > +
> > +exit:
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> >  }
> 
> Rendering that RCU stuff superfluous.


May be I'm omitting something that would make it non-rcu-safe.

But consider a perf event running on CPU 1. And you close the fd on
CPU 0. CPU 1 has started to use a callchain buffer but receives an IPI
to retire the event from the cpu. But still it has yet to finish his
callchain processing.

If right after that CPU 0 releases the callchain buffers, CPU 1 may
crash in the middle.

So you need to wait for the grace period to end.

--
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