[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190926144450.GC4519@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:44:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] perf: Allow using AUX data in perf samples
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:32:39PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> The other problem is sampling SW events, that would require a ctx->lock
> to prevent racing with event_function_call()s from other cpus, resulting
> in somewhat cringy "if (!in_nmi()) raw_spin_lock(...)", but I don't have
> better idea as to how to handle that.
> +int perf_pmu_aux_sample_output(struct perf_event *event,
> + struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> + unsigned long size)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * NMI vs IRQ
> + *
> + * Normal ->start()/->stop() callbacks run in IRQ mode in scheduler
> + * paths. If we start calling them in NMI context, they may race with
> + * the IRQ ones, that is, for example, re-starting an event that's just
> + * been stopped.
> + */
> + if (!in_nmi())
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&event->ctx->lock, flags);
> +
> + ret = event->pmu->snapshot_aux(event, handle, size);
> +
> + if (!in_nmi())
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&event->ctx->lock, flags);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
I'm confused... would not something like:
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
ret = event->pmu->snapshot_aux(...);
local_irq_restore(flags);
return ret;
Be sufficient? By disabling IRQs we already hold off remote
event_function_call()s.
Or am I misunderstanding the race here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists