lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip 1/1] perf_counter tools: Add locking to perf top
Em Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:22:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 17:03 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > /* Sort the active symbols */
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(syme, n, &active_symbols, node) {
> > - if (syme->count[0] != 0) {
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&active_symbols_lock);
> > + syme = list_entry(active_symbols.next, struct sym_entry, node);
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&active_symbols_lock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe_from(syme, n, &active_symbols, node) {
> > + syme->snap_count = syme->count[0];
> > + if (syme->snap_count != 0) {
> > + syme->weight = sym_weight(syme);
>
> That looks wrong, you basically do a fancy cast while holding the lock,
> then you overwrite the variable doing a list iteration without holding
> the lock.
>
> If list_add and list_del are under a lock, the iteration should be too.

Look closer :)

1) List insertion is only done at the head and by the other thread, thus
the lock above. The other thread will only mess with the above
syme->node.prev when inserting a new head, never with .next.

2) List deletion is only done after taking the lock, and on the above
thread.

Only problem probably is to access syme->count[0], that on some
architectures may not be atomic.

- Arnaldo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-29 22:37    [W:0.053 / U:3.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site