[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321958457.5148.17.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:40:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_event: fix loss of notification with multi-event
sampling
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:53 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> + /* ring_buffer waitq pointer */
> + wait_queue_head_t *waitq;
Not a big issue, but is there a reason to keep this pointer instead of
always having to do:
rcu_read_lock();
rb = rcu_dereference(event->rb);
if (rb)
wake_up_all(rb->waitq);
rcu_read_unlock();
Hmm, looking at that there must be a reason we go through all the RCU
trouble for event->rb, assuming there is, your lack of rcu in say
perf_poll() could go funny.
/me ponders..
Ah, could it be a race of poll()/wakeup() vs perf_event_set_output() ?
Suppose you're a threaded proglet and either one cpu/thread has an
incoming event that does a wakeup, or one thread is stuck in poll()
whilst another thread does perf_event_set_output(), it could swizzle the
event->rb right out from under you.
Now, this is of course a somewhat silly thing to do.. but still it
shouldn't make things go *bang*.
Now the above wake_up_all() thing would work just fine, its just poll()
that I'm not sure how to fix.
--
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