[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140219183623.GL27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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