[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160122194403.GC11338@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:44:03 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Synchronously cleanup child events
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:38:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:35:40PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> >
> > > So I think there's a number of problems still :-(
I've been looking at how perf_event->owner is handled and couldn't
figure out how you deal with the case of passing perf_event_fd via scm_rights.
It seems one process can open an event, pass it to another process,
but when current process exists owner will still point to dead task,
since refcount > 0.
Which part am I missing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists