[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301395789.2250.376.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:49:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] perf: panic due to inclied cpu context task_ctx
value
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2922,15 +2926,40 @@ static void free_event(struct perf_event
> call_rcu(&event->rcu_head, free_event_rcu);
> }
>
> -int perf_event_release_kernel(struct perf_event *event)
> +static int __perf_event_release(void *info)
> {
> + struct perf_event *event = info;
> struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
> + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
> + int ret;
>
> /*
> - * Remove from the PMU, can't get re-enabled since we got
> - * here because the last ref went.
> + * Disable the event if its still running, we're shutting down.
> */
> - perf_event_disable(event);
> + ret = __perf_event_disable(info);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> + perf_group_detach(event);
> + list_del_event(event, ctx);
> + /*
> + * In case we removed the last event from an active task_ctx
> + * deactivate the task_ctx because this event being freed might
> + * lead to the perf_sched_events jump_label being disabled
> + * which avoids the task sched-out hook from being called.
> + */
> + if (!ctx->nr_events && cpuctx->task_ctx == ctx) {
> + ctx->is_active = 0;
> + cpuctx->task_ctx = NULL;
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> +}
> +
> +int perf_event_release_kernel(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
> + struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(ctx->parent_ctx);
> /*
> @@ -2946,10 +2975,28 @@ int perf_event_release_kernel(struct per
> * to trigger the AB-BA case.
> */
> mutex_lock_nested(&ctx->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + if (!task) {
> + cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_event_release, event);
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> +retry:
> + if (!task_function_call(task, __perf_event_release, event))
> + goto unlock;
> +
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> + if (ctx->is_active) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> + goto retry;
> + }
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE);
> +
> perf_group_detach(event);
> list_del_event(event, ctx);
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> +
> +unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
>
> free_event(event);
we can simplify that and use perf_remove_from_context(), except that
changes the close() semantics slightly for grouped events, the current
code will I think deschedule the complete group when you close the
leader, when using pref_remote_from_context() we'll promote the siblings
to individual events and let them run when you close the leader.
I'm fairly sure no-one _should_ rely on that, but they _might_..
--
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