[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <169833996388.1181734.6181786783343850640.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:11:12 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] perf lock contention: Clear lock addr after use
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:47:39 -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> It checks the current lock to calculated the delta of contention time.
> The address is saved in the tstamp map which is allocated at begining of
> contention and released at end of contention.
>
> But it's possible for bpf_map_delete_elem() to fail. In that case, the
> element in the tstamp map kept for the current lock and it makes the
> next contention for the same lock tracked incorrectly. Specificially
> the next contention begin will see the existing element for the task and
> it'd just return. Then the next contention end will see the element and
> calculate the time using the timestamp for the previous begin.
>
> [...]
Applied to perf-tools-next, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists