[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110119182141.GA12183@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:21:41 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Was: Q: sys_perf_event_open() && PF_EXITING
On 11/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I am puzzled by PF_EXITING check in find_lively_task_by_vpid().
>
> How can it help? The task can call do_exit() right after the check.
>
> And why do we need it? The comment only says "Can't attach events to
> a dying task". Maybe it tries protect sys_perf_event_open() against
> perf_event_exit_task_context(), but it can't.
Yes.
Please see 1/2. Well, I can't say I really like the idea to reuse
task->perf_event_mutex, but I do not see a better fix.
Also, I have no idea how can I actually test the changes in the code
I can hardly understand, please review.
Also. I believe there are more problems in perf_install_event(), but
I need to recheck.
> Hmm. jump_label_inc/dec looks obviously racy too. Say, free_event() races
> with perf_event_alloc(). There is a window between atomic_xxx() and
> jump_label_update(), afaics it is possible to call jump_label_disable()
> when perf_task_events/perf_swevent_enabled != 0.
Another issue...
Oleg.
--
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