[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307644812.2497.1022.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 20:40:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, andi@...stfloor.org,
ming.m.lin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf_events: fix validation of events using an
extra reg (v4)
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 16:57 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> +static struct cpu_hw_events *allocate_fake_cpuc(void)
> +{
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
That's a boo-boo, clearly we are in a preemptible context here (see the
GFP_KERNEL allocation on the next line), so using smp_processor_id()
isn't valid.
Now since all that allocate_shared_regs() does with it is pick a NUMA
node, we should probably use raw_smp_processor_id() and leave it at
that, right?
> + cpuc = kzalloc(sizeof(*cpuc), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cpuc)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + /* only needed, if we have extra_regs */
> + if (x86_pmu.extra_regs) {
> + cpuc->shared_regs = allocate_shared_regs(cpu);
> + if (!cpuc->shared_regs)
> + goto error;
> + }
> + return cpuc;
> +error:
> + free_fake_cpuc(cpuc);
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +}
--
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