[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200220204617.728659044@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:45:21 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [patch V2 04/20] perf/bpf: Remove preempt disable around BPF invocation
The BPF invocation from the perf event overflow handler does not require to
disable preemption because this is called from NMI or at least hard
interrupt context which is already non-preemptible.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -9206,7 +9206,6 @@ static void bpf_overflow_handler(struct
int ret = 0;
ctx.regs = perf_arch_bpf_user_pt_regs(regs);
- preempt_disable();
if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1))
goto out;
rcu_read_lock();
@@ -9214,7 +9213,6 @@ static void bpf_overflow_handler(struct
rcu_read_unlock();
out:
__this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
- preempt_enable();
if (!ret)
return;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists