[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tip-e708d7ad80737496870fd0b6794704d063fb0cdc@git.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:23:54 -0700
From: tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <tipbot@...or.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
acme@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de
Subject: [tip:perf/core] perf: Do poll_wait()
before checking condition in perf_poll()
Commit-ID: e708d7ad80737496870fd0b6794704d063fb0cdc
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/e708d7ad80737496870fd0b6794704d063fb0cdc
Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
AuthorDate: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:31:08 +0200
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:51:11 +0200
perf: Do poll_wait() before checking condition in perf_poll()
One should first enqueue to the waitqueue and then check for the
condition. If the condition gets true after mutex_unlock() but before
poll_wait() then we lose it and would have wait for another wakeup.
This has been like this since v2.6.31-rc1 commit c7138f37f9 ("perf_counter:
fix perf_poll()"). Before that it was slightly worse. I guess we get enough
wakeups so if we miss here one it doesn't really matter. It is still a
bad example.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1407159068-1478-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index a254605..2d7363a 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -3629,6 +3629,7 @@ static unsigned int perf_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
struct ring_buffer *rb;
unsigned int events = POLL_HUP;
+ poll_wait(file, &event->waitq, wait);
/*
* Pin the event->rb by taking event->mmap_mutex; otherwise
* perf_event_set_output() can swizzle our rb and make us miss wakeups.
@@ -3638,9 +3639,6 @@ static unsigned int perf_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
if (rb)
events = atomic_xchg(&rb->poll, 0);
mutex_unlock(&event->mmap_mutex);
-
- poll_wait(file, &event->waitq, wait);
-
return events;
}
--
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