[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45396b77-4acb-817c-eeae-9a672a92611c@csgroup.eu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:15:17 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"kasan-dev@...glegroups.com" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] powerpc/hw_breakpoint: Avoid relying on caller
synchronization
Le 01/07/2022 à 11:41, Marco Elver a écrit :
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 10:54, Christophe Leroy
> <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> Le 28/06/2022 à 11:58, Marco Elver a écrit :
>>> Internal data structures (cpu_bps, task_bps) of powerpc's hw_breakpoint
>>> implementation have relied on nr_bp_mutex serializing access to them.
>>>
>>> Before overhauling synchronization of kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c,
>>> introduce 2 spinlocks to synchronize cpu_bps and task_bps respectively,
>>> thus avoiding reliance on callers synchronizing powerpc's hw_breakpoint.
>>
>> We have an still opened old issue in our database related to
>> hw_breakpoint, I was wondering if it could have any link with the
>> changes you are doing and whether you could handle it at the same time.
>>
>> https://github.com/linuxppc/issues/issues/38
>>
>> Maybe it is completely unrelated, but as your series modifies only
>> powerpc and as the issue says that powerpc is the only one to do that, I
>> thought it might be worth a hand up.
>
> I see the powerpc issue unrelated to the optimizations in this series;
> perhaps by fixing the powerpc issue, it would also become more
> optimal. But all I saw is that it just so happens that powerpc relied
> on the nr_bp_mutex which is going away.
>
> This series will become even more complex if I decided to add a
> powerpc rework on top (notwithstanding the fact I don't have any ppc
> hardware at my disposal either). A separate series/patch seems much
> more appropriate.
>
Fair enough. Thanks for answering and clarifying.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists