Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:18:56 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy? |
| |
On 01/27, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 17:57 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > 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. > > That would be very easy to do, we can pass a return value through the > task_function_call structure.
Yes.
Perhaps task_oncpu_function_call() should retry itself to simplify the callers. I wonder if we should also retry if rq->curr != p...
Oh. You know, I am starting to think I will never understand this. Forget about the problems with __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPT_ON_CTXSW.
perf_install_in_context() does task_oncpu_function_call() and then
// ctx->is_active == 0
/* * The lock prevents that this context is scheduled in so we * can add the event safely, if it the call above did not * succeed. */ if (list_empty(&event->group_entry)) add_event_to_ctx(event, ctx);
This assumes that the task is not running.
Why? Because (I guess) we assume that either task_oncpu_function_call() should see task_curr() == T, or if the task becomes running after that it should see the new ->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn] != NULL. And I do not see how we can prove this.
If find_get_context() sets the new context, the only guarantee we have is: perf_event_exit_task() can't miss this context. The task, however, can be scheduled in and miss the new value in perf_event_ctxp[]. And, task_oncpu_function_call() can equally miss rq->curr == task.
But. I think this all falls into the absolutely theoretical category, and in the worst case nothing really bad can happen, just event_sched_in() will be delayed until this task reshedules.
So, I think your patch should fix all problems with schedule. Just it needs the couple of changes we already discussed:
- finish_task_switch() should clear rq->in_ctxsw before local_irq_enable()
- task_oncpu_function_call() (or its callers) should always retry the "if (task_curr(p))" code if ->in_ctxsw is true.
If you think we have other problems here please don't tell me, I already got lost ;)
Oleg.
| |