[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161024121202.GE3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:12:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Ni, BaoleX" <baolex.ni@...el.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:04:11PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 01:29:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hurm, then again, I imagine that after unhash_process the PID/TID could
> > be instantly re-used and then we're still confused.
>
> sounds bad.. I haven't checked the related pid_alive code,
> but shouldn't we already get the EXIT event in this case?
It has, perf_event_exit_task() happens before we unhash.
But a per-cpu event that has PID/TID reporting on will run into this.
We'll observe 'funny' values between the unhash and the next context
switch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists