[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhZsOvM3uTP6nTnZ@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:38:50 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] perf: Remove perf_swevent_get_recursion_context()
from perf_pending_task().
Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:33:36PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior a écrit :
> On 2024-04-09 14:00:49 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:54:05PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior a écrit :
> > > On 2024-04-09 12:35:46 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > > > @@ -6800,10 +6792,6 @@ static void perf_pending_task(struct callback_head *head)
> > > > > > > local_dec(&event->ctx->nr_pending);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (rctx >= 0)
> > > > > > > - perf_swevent_put_recursion_context(rctx);
> > > > > > > - preempt_enable_notrace();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, if a software event happens during perf_sigtrap(), the task work
> > > > > > may be requeued endlessly and the task may get stuck in task_work_run()...
> > > > >
> > > > > The last time I checked it had no users in the task context. How would
> > > > > that happen?
> > > >
> > > > I guess many tracepoint events would do the trick. Such as trace_lock_acquire()
> > > > for example.
> > >
> > > So the perf_trace_buf_alloc() is invoked from that trace point and
> > > avoids the recursion. And any trace event from within perf_sigtrap()
> > > would trigger the endless loop?
> >
> > No sure I'm following:
> >
> > 1) event->perf_event_overflow() -> task_work_add()
> > //return to userspace
> > 2) task_work_run() -> perf_pending_task() -> perf_sigtrap() -> tracepoint event
> > -> perf_event_overflow() -> task_work_add()
> > 3) task_work_run() -> perf_pending_task() -> etc...
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> Yes, that is what I tried to say.
Oh ok.. :o)
> Anyway, I misunderstood the concept
> before. That means we need to keep that counter here and a
> migrate_disable() is needed to avoid CPU migration which is sad.
I fear that won't work either. The task is then pinned but another
task can come up on that CPU and its software events will be ignored...
Some alternatives:
_ Clear event->pending_work = 0 after perf_sigtrap(), preventing an
event in there from adding a new task work. We may miss a signal though...
_ Make the recursion context per task on -RT...
> > Thanks.
>
> Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists