[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?
On 01/27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Right, so the fact of introducing extra scheduling makes me feel
> uncomfortable... the whole purpose is to observe without perturbing (as
> much as possible).

Yes, agreed.

Well, otoh the patch removes the code which sets ->task_ctx from
__perf_install_in_context() and __perf_event_enable(), and perhaps
we could simplify the things further, but anyway I agree.

> Should I think suffice to get the ctx in sync with the task state, we've
> got the following cases:
> 1) task is in the middle of scheduling in
> 2) task is in the middle of scheduling out
> 3) task is running
> Without __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPT_ON_CTXSW everything is boring and works,
> 1: the IPI will be delayed until 3, 2: the IPI finds another task and
> the next schedule in will sort things.
> With, however, things are more interesting. 2 seems to be adequately
> covered by the patch I just send, the IPI will bail and the next
> sched-in of the relevant task will pick matters up. 1 otoh doesn't seem
> covered, the IPI will bail, leaving us stranded.

Hmm, yes... Strangely, I missed that when I was thinking about in_ctxsw.

Perhaps, we can change task_oncpu_function_call() so that it returns
-EAGAIN in case it hits in_ctxsw != 0? If the caller sees -EAGAIN, it
should always retry even if !ctx->is_active.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-27 18:07    [W:0.101 / U:23.476 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site