[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180720115217.GQ2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:52:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: fix a possible deadlock scenario
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:12:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> hrtimer_cancel() busy-waits for the hrtimer callback to stop,
> pretty much like del_timer_sync(). This creates a possible deadlock
> scenario where we hold a spinlock before calling hrtimer_cancel()
> while in trying to acquire the same spinlock in the callback.
Has this actually been observed?
> cpu_clock_event_init():
> perf_swevent_init_hrtimer():
> hwc->hrtimer.function = perf_swevent_hrtimer;
>
> perf_swevent_hrtimer():
> __perf_event_overflow():
> __perf_event_account_interrupt():
> perf_adjust_period():
> pmu->stop():
> cpu_clock_event_stop():
> perf_swevent_cancel():
> hrtimer_cancel()
Please explain how a hrtimer event ever gets to perf_adjust_period().
Last I checked perf_swevent_init_hrtimer() results in attr.freq=0.
> Getting stuck in an hrtimer is a disaster:
You'll get NMI watchdog splats. Getting stuck in NMI context is far more
'interesting :-)
> +#define PERF_EF_NO_WAIT 0x08 /* do not wait when stopping, for
> + * example, waiting for a timer
> + */
That's a broken comment style.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists