[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2cf234bc-de9b-4017-a671-710a55e5a35e@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:27:12 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, lucas.demarchi@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 24/24] perf: Make perf_pmu_unregister() useable
On 13-Feb-25 6:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 01:22:55PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>> Does this work?
>>>
>>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> @@ -2303,6 +2303,7 @@ static void perf_child_detach(struct per
>>>
>>> sync_child_event(event);
>>> list_del_init(&event->child_list);
>>> + event->parent = NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static bool is_orphaned_event(struct perf_event *event)
>>
>> Apparently not, it ends up with:
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 145 PID: 5459 at kernel/events/core.c:281 event_function+0xd2/0xf0
>
> Durr, do you have an updated test case?
This one triggered with just perf_fuzzer run (without my tinypmu test).
But in general, to test the whole series, I ran perf_fuzzer simultaneously
with my tinypmu tests:
term1~$ echo -1 | sudo tee /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid; while true; do ./perf_fuzzer; done
term2~$ cd ~/tinypmu; make clean; make; while true; do sudo bash tinypmu-u.sh; done
Thanks,
Ravi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists