[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXUsVW7a0+_Z_R-k8xGEQBSKd5Oz7j5+z=G1kQHoDfCqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:44:43 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <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>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: fix a possible deadlock scenario
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Peter, Andi
>
> While reviewing the deadlock, I find out it looks like we could have the
> following infinite recursion too:
>
> perf_event_account_interrupt()
> __perf_event_account_interrupt()
> perf_adjust_period()
> event->pmu->stop
> x86_pmu_stop()
> x86_pmu.disable()
Hmm, x86_pmu_stop() calls __test_and_clear_bit(), so
we should not call x86_pmu.disable() twice here.
> intel_pmu_disable_event()
> intel_pmu_pebs_disable()
> intel_pmu_drain_pebs_buffer()
> intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm()
> <repeat....>
>
> This time is pure hardware events, attr.freq must be non-zero.
>
> And, we could enter this infinite recursion in NMI handler too:
>
> intel_pmu_handle_irq()
> perf_event_overflow()
> __perf_event_overflow()
> __perf_event_account_interrupt()
> ....
>
> Or this is impossible too?
>
> Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists