[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzRgcnMXWuUZ4rlt@elver.google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:55:46 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix missing SIGTRAPs due to pending_disable abuse
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:06PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> My second idea about introducing something like irq_work_raw_sync().
> Maybe it's not that crazy if it is actually safe. I expect this case
> where we need the irq_work_raw_sync() to be very very rare.
The previous irq_work_raw_sync() forgot about irq_work_queue_on(). Alas,
I might still be missing something obvious, because "it's never that
easy". ;-)
And for completeness, the full perf patch of what it would look like
together with irq_work_raw_sync() (consider it v1.5). It's already
survived some shorter stress tests and fuzzing.
Thanks,
-- Marco
View attachment "0001-irq_work-Introduce-irq_work_raw_sync.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (2751 bytes)
View attachment "0002-perf-Fix-missing-SIGTRAPs-due-to-pending_disable-abu.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (6679 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists