Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:48:30 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf cgroups: Fix perf_cgroup_switch schedule in warning | From | Stephane Eranian <> |
| |
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:53:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 13:42 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c >> > @@ -394,7 +394,8 @@ void perf_cgroup_switch(struct task_struct *task, int mode) >> > } >> > >> > if (mode & PERF_CGROUP_SWIN) { >> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp); >> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp && !cpuctx->ctx.is_active); >> > + >> > /* set cgrp before ctxsw in to >> > * allow event_filter_match() to not >> > * have to pass task around >> >> OK, like you mentioned this is the result of multiple PMU being able to >> share a cpuctx, shouldn't we in that case avoid the second loop over the >> cpuctx as a whole? >> Not sure, I understand what active_pmu represents.
>> Would something like the below do? IIRC I introduced that active_pmu for >> exactly such reasons.. >> >> --- >> kernel/events/core.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c >> index 7b9df35..e98f014 100644 >> --- a/kernel/events/core.c >> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c >> @@ -372,6 +372,8 @@ void perf_cgroup_switch(struct task_struct *task, int mode) >> >> list_for_each_entry_rcu(pmu, &pmus, entry) { >> cpuctx = this_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context); >> + if (cpuctx->active_pmu != pmu) >> + continue; >> >> /* >> * perf_cgroup_events says at least one >> > > this passed my test > > jirka
| |