[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321968559.14799.2.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:29:19 +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 Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:15 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Ah, could it be a race of poll()/wakeup() vs perf_event_set_output() ?
> >
> Are you saying that by dropping event->waitq in favor of event->rb->waitq
> we make this problem disappear due to rcu protections?
Well, except..
> Poll_wait() is a blocking call. It may wait on a stale waitq. But that problem
> was probably already there. I am not clear as to what to do about that.
> in perf_set_output() you would need to wakeup from poll_wait() and then
> go back in with the new waitq.
Right, the whole blocking thing is a problem, and the whole poll()
interface always makes my head hurt.
If there was a go-sleep and wake-up side to poll we could do
ring_buffer_get()/put() and fix this problem, but I'm not finding a way
to make that happen quite yet.
> Similarly, I am not clear as to what happens when you close an event for
> which you have a waiter in poll_wait(). I assume you wakeup from it.
> But I don't see where that's implemented.
Good point, yes we should do that.
--
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