lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:31:02 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, fweisbec@...il.com,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com,
	robert.richter@....com, acme@...hat.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf_events: add cgroup support (v8)

Peter,

See comments below.


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Compile tested only, depends on the cgroup::exit patch
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -905,6 +929,9 @@ struct perf_cpu_context {
>        struct list_head                rotation_list;
>        int                             jiffies_interval;
>        struct pmu                      *active_pmu;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_PERF
> +       struct perf_cgroup              *cgrp;
> +#endif
>  };
>
I don't quite understand the motivation for adding cgrp to cpuctx.

> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
> +static inline void update_cgrp_time_from_cpuctx(struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx)
> +{
> +       struct perf_cgroup *cgrp_out = cpuctx->cgrp;
> +       if (cgrp_out)
> +               __update_cgrp_time(cgrp_out);
> +}
> +
What's the benefit of this form compared to the original from_task() version?

> +void perf_cgroup_switch(struct task_struct *task, int mode)
> +{
> +       struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
> +       struct pmu *pmu;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * disable interrupts to avoid geting nr_cgroup
> +        * changes via __perf_event_disable(). Also
> +        * avoids preemption.
> +        */
> +       local_irq_save(flags);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * we reschedule only in the presence of cgroup
> +        * constrained events.
> +        */
> +       rcu_read_lock();
> +
> +       list_for_each_entry_rcu(pmu, &pmus, entry) {
> +
> +               cpuctx = this_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
> +
> +               perf_pmu_disable(cpuctx->ctx.pmu);
> +
> +               /*
> +                * perf_cgroup_events says at least one
> +                * context on this CPU has cgroup events.
> +                *
> +                * ctx->nr_cgroups reports the number of cgroup
> +                * events for a context.
> +                */
> +               if (cpuctx->ctx.nr_cgroups > 0) {
> +
> +                       if (mode & PERF_CGROUP_SWOUT)
> +                               cpu_ctx_sched_out(cpuctx, EVENT_ALL);
> +
> +                       if (mode & PERF_CGROUP_SWIN) {
> +                               cpu_ctx_sched_in(cpuctx, EVENT_ALL, task, 1);
> +                               cpuctx->cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(task);
> +                       }
> +               }
I think there is a risk on cpuctx->cgrp pointing to stale cgrp information.
Shouldn't we also set cpuctx->cgrp = NULL on SWOUT?

> +static int __perf_cgroup_move(void *info)
> +{
> +       struct task_struct *task = info;
> +       perf_cgroup_switch(task, PERF_CGROUP_SWOUT | PERF_CGROUP_SWIN);
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void perf_cgroup_move(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +       task_function_call(task, __perf_cgroup_move, task);
> +}
> +
> +static void perf_cgroup_attach(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp,
> +               struct cgroup *old_cgrp, struct task_struct *task,
> +               bool threadgroup)
> +{
> +       perf_cgroup_move(task);
> +       if (threadgroup) {
> +               struct task_struct *c;
> +               rcu_read_lock();
> +               list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &task->thread_group, thread_group) {
> +                       perf_cgroup_move(c);
> +               }
> +               rcu_read_unlock();
> +       }
> +}
> +
I suspect my original patch was not necessarily handling the attach completely
when you move an existing task into a cgroup which was already monitored.
I think you may have had to wait until a ctxsw. Looks like this callback handles
this better.

Let me make sure I understand the threadgroup iteration, though. I suspect
this handles the situation where a multi-threaded app is moved into a cgroup
while there is already cgroup monitoring active. In that case and if we do not
want to wait until there is at least one ctxsw on all CPUs, then we have to
check if the other threads are not already running on the other CPUs.If so,
we need to do a cgroup switch on those CPUs. Otherwise, we have nothing to
do. Am I getting this right?

> +static void perf_cgroup_exit(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp,
> +               struct cgroup *old_cgrp, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +       /*
> +        * cgroup_exit() is called in the copy_process() failure path.
> +        * Ignore this case since the task hasn't ran yet, this avoids
> +        * trying to poke a half freed task state from generic code.
> +        */
> +       if (!(task->flags & PF_EXITING))
> +               return;
> +
> +       perf_cgroup_move(task);
> +}
> +
Those callbacks looks good to me. They certainly alleviate the need for the
hack in cgorup_exit().

Thanks for fixing this.

> +struct cgroup_subsys perf_subsys = {
> +       .name = "perf_event",
> +       .subsys_id = perf_subsys_id,
> +       .create = perf_cgroup_create,
> +       .destroy = perf_cgroup_destroy,
> +       .exit = perf_cgroup_exit,
> +       .attach = perf_cgroup_attach,
> +};
> +#endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_PERF */
>
>
>
--
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