[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289325703.2191.60.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:01:43 +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 18:42 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Ah,.. quite so. So how about we explicitly destroy the list when the
> > task dies?
>
> Yes, I think it makes sense to destroy the list and set ->owner = NULL.
> If we reset the owner, we can also avoid get_task_struct().
>
> The only problem is perf_event_release_kernel(), it can race with the
> exiting event->owner. It can do get_task_struct() under rcu lock temporary,
> just to take the mutex and remove the entry.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Agreed, another case when event->owner should be NULL.
>
>
>
> Hmm. With or without these changes. Shouldn't perf_event_release_kernel()
> remove the event from list before anything else? Otherwise, afaics a thread
> which does close(event_fd) can race with creator doing prctl(EVENTS_ENABLE),
> no?
I think you're right, how about something like this?
---
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -2234,11 +2234,6 @@ int perf_event_release_kernel(struct per
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
- mutex_lock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
- list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
- mutex_unlock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
- put_task_struct(event->owner);
-
free_event(event);
return 0;
@@ -2254,6 +2249,12 @@ static int perf_release(struct inode *in
file->private_data = NULL;
+ if (event->owner) {
+ mutex_lock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
+ list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
+ mutex_unlock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
+ }
+
return perf_event_release_kernel(event);
}
@@ -5677,7 +5678,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
event->owner = current;
- get_task_struct(current);
+
mutex_lock(¤t->perf_event_mutex);
list_add_tail(&event->owner_entry, ¤t->perf_event_list);
mutex_unlock(¤t->perf_event_mutex);
@@ -5745,12 +5746,6 @@ perf_event_create_kernel_counter(struct
++ctx->generation;
mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
- event->owner = current;
- get_task_struct(current);
- mutex_lock(¤t->perf_event_mutex);
- list_add_tail(&event->owner_entry, ¤t->perf_event_list);
- mutex_unlock(¤t->perf_event_mutex);
-
return event;
err_free:
@@ -5901,8 +5896,16 @@ static void perf_event_exit_task_context
*/
void perf_event_exit_task(struct task_struct *child)
{
+ struct perf_event *event, *tmp;
int ctxn;
+ mutex_lock(&child->perf_event_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(event, tmp, &child->perf_event_list,
+ owner_entry) {
+ list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&child->perf_event_mutex);
+
for_each_task_context_nr(ctxn)
perf_event_exit_task_context(child, ctxn);
}
--
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