lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 20:30 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Also. I believe there are more problems in perf_install_event(), but
> > > I need to recheck.
> >
> > Help! I can't believe it can be so trivially wrong, but otoh I can't
> > understand how this can be correct.
> >
> > So, ignoring details and !task case, __perf_install_in_context() does:
> >
> > if (cpuctx->task_ctx || ctx->task != current)
> > return;
> >
> > cpuctx->task_ctx = ctx;
> > event_sched_in(event);
> >
> > Stupid question, what if this task has already passed
> > perf_event_exit_task() and thus it doesn't have ->perf_event_ctxp[] ?
> > Given that perf_event_context_sched_out() does nothing if !ctx, who
> > will event_sched_out() this event?
> >
> > OK, even if I am right this is trivial, we just need the additional
> > check.
>
> Indeed (or do the cleanup from put_ctx(), but that's too complex a
> change I think).
>
> > But, it seems, there is another problem. Forget about the exiting,
> > I can't understand why we can trust current in the code above.
> > With __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW schedule() does:
> >
> > // sets cpuctx->task_ctx = NULL
> > perf_event_task_sched_out();
> >
> > // enables irqs
> > prepare_lock_switch();
> >
> >
> > // updates current_task
> > switch_to();
> >
> > What if IPI comes in the window before switch_to() ?
> >
> > (the same questions for __perf_event_enable).
>
> Ingo, do you have any insights in that, I think you wrote all that
> initially?

Not sure. Can an IPI come there - we have irqs disabled usually, dont we?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-21 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site