linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_event: fix slow and broken cgroup context switch code

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]

Message-ID: <1314283321.27911.25.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:42:01 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, ming.m.lin@...el.com,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_event: fix slow and broken cgroup context switch
 code

On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 16:36 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:58 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> +static inline void perf_event_task_sched_out(struct task_struct
> >> *prev,
> >> +                                            struct task_struct *next)
> >>  {
> >>         perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_CONTEXT_SWITCHES, 1, NULL, 0);
> >>
> >> -       __perf_event_task_sched_out(task, next);
> >> +       if (static_branch(&perf_sched_events))
> >> +               __perf_event_task_sched_out(prev, next);
> >>  }
> >
> > Right, so the reason we removed the static branch from there is
> >
> >  lkml.kernel.org/r/20110324164436.GC1930@...sa.brq.redhat.com
> >
> > now I think the series 075e0b0085 to 64ce312618e should have cured that
> > problem, and adding the static_branch() is now safe again. But there's
> > no mention of any of this in the Changelog.
> >
> I realized I did not talk about the static_branch() change after I had
> clicked on
> Send. But to me, this looks natural to have the static branch in the ctxsw out
> routine. This has to be symmetrical with ctxsw in . The static branch is about
> avoiding perf ctxsw when there is no need for it, i.e., no per-thread
> nor per-cgroup
> events.

Yeah, that argument is what got us into trouble initially :) But I think
its ok now, we'll see if stuff explodes or not..
--
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/