[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQ7L1bpfqGBLwe-V2pZog-1Bc2KsMUWZ1vPxWAR=A1UsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:27:52 -0700
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: fix RCU issues with cgroup monitoring mode
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 16:37 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
>> But that macro is already embedded into the task_css_set() macro.
>> What we are saying here is that we have another way of ensuring the
>> cgroup cannot disappear here, and thus the rcu lockdep detects we
>> are not holding the rcu read lock but we know this is okay. We are
>> trying to avoid grabbing the rcu read lock when it is not really needed
>> to guarantee correct execution. So we are just shutting up the lockdep
>> in these particular cases by passing true as the safe argument value.
>
> Sure, but in lockdep verbs, the following :
>
> + /* holding ctx->lock, so cgroup access is safe */
> + cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(task, true);
>
> would map to :
>
> cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(task, lockdep_is_held(&ctx->lock));
>
> Notice the comment becomes useless.
>
Ok, this is more explicit for sure and should anything change, we would
catch it. I misunderstand what Eric was proposing. I will modify this for V3
then and test again.
Thanks.
--
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