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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:36:23 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Drew Richardson <drew.richardson@....com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnaldo <acme@...hat.com>, Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>, Wade Cherry <Wade.Cherry@....com> Subject: Re: Perf Oops on 3.14-rc2 On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 07:03:13PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: > I am trying to understand the context here. > Are you saying, we may call an offline CPU? Yes, that is what's happening. > I saw that sometimes you retry, sometimes you don't. I tried to do exactly what we do for the task case which is far more likely to fail. Could be I messed up. I should probably write the function differently and have a common retry path instead of duplicating everything. > For perf_cgroup_attach(), we invoke task_function_call() > to force a PMU context switch on the task which is now monitored in cgroup mode. > If the CPU is offline then, the task is switched out and monitoring > has been stoppe, > no need to retry or do anything more. > > For perf_cgroup_exit(), this is pretty much the same logic. > > am I missing anything else? Don't think so; I'll add a comment there. I was just too tired to make sense of things. -- 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