[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <135a1238-9a43-8335-e8a6-961678e95f65@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:07:20 +0530
From: kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: jolsa@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
mingo@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, brho@...gle.com, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf/core: Fixes hung issue on perf stat command during cpu
hotplug
On 8/26/20 6:51 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:02:36PM +0530, Kajol Jain escreveu:
>> Commit 2ed6edd33a21 ("perf: Add cond_resched() to task_function_call()")
>> added assignment of ret value as -EAGAIN in case function
>> call to 'smp_call_function_single' fails.
>> For non-zero ret value, it did
>> 'ret = !ret ? data.ret : -EAGAIN;', which always
>> assign -EAGAIN to ret and make second if condition useless.
>>
>> In scenarios like when executing a perf stat with --per-thread option, and
>> if any of the monitoring cpu goes offline, the 'smp_call_function_single'
>> function could return -ENXIO, and with the above check,
>> task_function_call hung and increases CPU
>> usage (because of repeated 'smp_call_function_single()')
>>
>> Recration scenario:
>> # perf stat -a --per-thread && (offline a CPU )
>
> Peter, this is kernel stuff, can you take a look?
>
> - Arnaldo
>
>> Patch here removes the tertiary condition added as part of that
>> commit and added a check for NULL and -EAGAIN.
>>
>> Fixes: 2ed6edd33a21("perf: Add cond_resched() to task_function_call()")
>> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Reported-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/events/core.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>> index 5bfe8e3c6e44..330c53f7df9c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>> @@ -115,9 +115,9 @@ task_function_call(struct task_struct *p, remote_function_f func, void *info)
>> for (;;) {
>> ret = smp_call_function_single(task_cpu(p), remote_function,
>> &data, 1);
>> - ret = !ret ? data.ret : -EAGAIN;
>> -
>> - if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>> + if (!ret)
>> + ret = data.ret;
>> + else if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>> break;
>>
>> cond_resched();
>> --
Hi,
Sorry for the confusion, I send wrong version of the patch. We don't have else in second
condition.
The right patch changes are:
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 5bfe8e3c6e44..53d960394af9 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ task_function_call(struct task_struct *p, remote_function_f func, void *info)
for (;;) {
ret = smp_call_function_single(task_cpu(p), remote_function,
&data, 1);
- ret = !ret ? data.ret : -EAGAIN;
-
+ if (!ret)
+ ret = data.ret;
if (ret != -EAGAIN)
break;
I will again send the patch, please ignore this one.
Thanks,
Kajol Jain
>> 2.26.2
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists