[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160113181016.GU6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:10:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, dvyukov@...gle.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/12] perf: Collapse and fix event_function_call()
users
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:00:50PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> I think I caught one, below.
>
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>
> > +static int event_function(void *info)
> > +{
> > + struct event_function_struct *efs = info;
> > + struct perf_event *event = efs->event;
> > + struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
> > + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
> > + struct perf_event_context *task_ctx = cpuctx->task_ctx;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Since we do the IPI call without holding ctx->lock things can have
> > + * changed, double check we hit the task we set out to hit.
> > + *
> > + * If ctx->task == current, we know things must remain valid because
> > + * we have IRQs disabled so we cannot schedule.
> > + */
> > + if (ctx->task) {
> > + if (ctx->task != current)
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(task_ctx != ctx);
>
> Looks like between dropping ctx::lock in event_function_call() and here,
> cpuctx::task_ctx may still become NULL.
Hmm yes I think you're right. If the event is being migrated to another
context concurrently the remove_from_context() might have gone through,
we'll still be waiting for sync_rcu and then this (say enabled) happens
and we're looking at a 'dead' context.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists