[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241104135517.679556858@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 14:39:11 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...nel.org,
lucas.demarchi@...el.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org,
willy@...radead.org,
acme@...nel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH 02/19] perf: Fix pmus_lock vs pmus_srcu ordering
Commit a63fbed776c7 ("perf/tracing/cpuhotplug: Fix locking order")
placed pmus_lock inside pmus_srcu, this makes perf_pmu_unregister()
trip lockdep.
Move the locking about such that only pmu_idr and pmus (list) are
modified while holding pmus_lock. This avoids doing synchronize_srcu()
while holding pmus_lock and all is well again.
Fixes: a63fbed776c7 ("perf/tracing/cpuhotplug: Fix locking order")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -11836,6 +11836,8 @@ void perf_pmu_unregister(struct pmu *pmu
{
mutex_lock(&pmus_lock);
list_del_rcu(&pmu->entry);
+ idr_remove(&pmu_idr, pmu->type);
+ mutex_unlock(&pmus_lock);
/*
* We dereference the pmu list under both SRCU and regular RCU, so
@@ -11845,7 +11847,6 @@ void perf_pmu_unregister(struct pmu *pmu
synchronize_rcu();
free_percpu(pmu->pmu_disable_count);
- idr_remove(&pmu_idr, pmu->type);
if (pmu_bus_running && pmu->dev && pmu->dev != PMU_NULL_DEV) {
if (pmu->nr_addr_filters)
device_remove_file(pmu->dev, &dev_attr_nr_addr_filters);
@@ -11853,7 +11854,6 @@ void perf_pmu_unregister(struct pmu *pmu
put_device(pmu->dev);
}
free_pmu_context(pmu);
- mutex_unlock(&pmus_lock);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_pmu_unregister);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists