[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289322469.2191.59.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:07:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: perf_event && event->owner
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 17:58 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 16:57 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > If the creator of perf_event dies, nobody can use its ->perf_event_list
> > > anyway. What is the point to keep the reference to the dead task_struct
> > > and preserve this ->perf_event_list?
> >
> > But when the owner dies it will close all its fds, which means it will
> > clear its tsk->perf_event_list, no? (With exception of the case where
> > the fd was passed through a unix-socket to another process).
>
> fork(), pthread_create(). Only __fput() calls ->release, when the last
> reference to file goes away.
Ah,.. quite so. So how about we explicitly destroy the list when the
task dies?
> And ptrace(), it doesn't use sys_perf_event_open() to create the event.
Right, I guess it uses kernel based things, I guess we could not add
kernel based counters to the list.
--
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