[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190716134219.GB4000@lenoir>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:42:20 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
syzbot+370a6b0f11867bf13515@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] perf/hw_breakpoint: Fix breakpoint overcommit issue
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 02:47:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:53:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I wish we could use event->ctx->task instead but on pmu::init() there
> > > is no ctx yet (we could pass the task in parameter though)
> >
> > Right, that should be fairly easy.
> >
> > > and on event->destroy() it's TASK_TOMBSTONE and retrieving the task at
> > > that time would be non trivial.
> >
> > Well, right, we can maybe make TOMBSTONE be the LSB instead of the whole
> > word, then we can recover the task pointer... *yuck* though.
>
> Something like the attached, completely untested patches.
>
> I didn't do the hw_breakpoint bit, because I got lost in that, but this
> basically provides what you asked for I think.
>
Thanks they look good! I can take them and work on top if you like.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists