[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140605133839.GJ3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:38:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, ak@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...hat.com, zheng.z.yan@...el.com,
maria.n.dimakopoulou@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] perf/x86: implement cross-HT corruption bug
workaround
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:14PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> static void
> +intel_start_scheduling(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
> +{
> + /*
> + * lock shared state until we are done scheduling
> + * in stop_event_scheduling()
> + * makes scheduling appear as a transaction
> + */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&excl_cntrs->lock, excl_cntrs->lock_flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * save initial state of sibling thread
> + */
> + memcpy(xlo->init_state, xlo->state, sizeof(xlo->init_state));
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +intel_stop_scheduling(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
> +{
> + /*
> + * make new sibling thread state visible
> + */
> + memcpy(xlo->state, xlo->init_state, sizeof(xlo->state));
> +
> + xl->sched_started = false;
> + /*
> + * release shared state lock (lock acquire in intel_start_scheduling())
> + */
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&excl_cntrs->lock, excl_cntrs->lock_flags);
> +}
Do you really need the irqsave/irqrestore? From what I can tell this is
always called under perf_event_context::lock and that is already an
IRQ-safe lock, so interrupts should always be disabled here.
Also, it looks like xl->state is the effective state, and ->init_state
is the work state? Is init the right name for this?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists