[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimSO-+-0=bc=TZqvUxe7gwsSn1xRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:36:10 +0200
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf_events: fix validation of events using an extra
reg (v4)
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Good point. I missed that.
> 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?
>
Yeah, for what we do with fake_cpuc, it does not really matter where
it comes from. This is not on any critical path. The simplest allocator
will do it.
>> + 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