[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711010926170.1942@nanos>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:26:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:32:00PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > That means we can have the following situation:
> >
> > lock(watchdog_mutex);
> > lockup_detector_reconfigure();
> > cpus_read_lock();
> > stop();
> > park()
> > update();
> > start();
> > unpark()
> > cpus_read_unlock(); thread runs()
> > cleanup();
> > unlock(watchdog_mutex);
> >
>
> Isn't there also a where hardlockup_detector_perf_init() creates an
> event to 'probe' stuff, and then hardlockup_detector_perf_enable()
> _again_ creates the event?
probe() releases the event.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists