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: <CABPqkBT_Wf8BLj7U7EDP2jpKUbzCJCbfF1ffzxWn2s-5pd+1og@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:03:08 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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..
>
I just ran that crash test you pointed out and so far so good. Don't know if
the crash was systematic, though.
--
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/