Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: perfcounters: lockdep warning | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:54:35 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:39 +0200, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: > Just tried kicking the tires of performance counters and perf and got > the following warning that doesn't look like have been reported already. > > [ 7765.594591] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > [ 7765.594602] 2.6.30debug-03217-gf3ad116 #47 > [ 7765.594609] ------------------------------------------------------- > [ 7765.594619] perf/14176 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 7765.594628] (&ctx->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c016f366>] perf_counter_for_each_sibling+0x50/0x7e > [ 7765.594660] > [ 7765.594663] but task is already holding lock: > [ 7765.594672] (&counter->child_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0172180>] perf_ioctl+0x184/0x1de > [ 7765.594696] > [ 7765.594699] which lock already depends on the new lock. > [ 7765.594703] > [ 7765.594711] > [ 7765.594714] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > [ 7765.594723] > [ 7765.594726] -> #1 (&counter->child_mutex){+.+...}: > [ 7765.594744] [<c0146f79>] __lock_acquire+0x9a5/0xb11 > [ 7765.594765] [<c014719e>] lock_acquire+0xb9/0xdb > [ 7765.594779] [<c0340664>] __mutex_lock_common+0x42/0x3c8 > [ 7765.594798] [<c0340a82>] mutex_lock_nested+0x2e/0x36 > [ 7765.594814] [<c016f8ad>] inherit_counter+0xdb/0x112 > [ 7765.594830] [<c01705bd>] perf_counter_init_task+0x15b/0x23f > [ 7765.594847] [<c0124338>] copy_process+0x4fb/0xfc8 > [ 7765.594865] [<c0124f1c>] do_fork+0x117/0x2b4 > [ 7765.594881] [<c0101f4f>] sys_clone+0x29/0x30 > [ 7765.594897] [<c01032e8>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3c > [ 7765.594913] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff > [ 7765.594967] > [ 7765.594970] -> #0 (&ctx->mutex){+.+.+.}: > [ 7765.594987] [<c0146e8c>] __lock_acquire+0x8b8/0xb11 > [ 7765.595004] [<c014719e>] lock_acquire+0xb9/0xdb > [ 7765.595018] [<c0340664>] __mutex_lock_common+0x42/0x3c8 > [ 7765.595035] [<c0340a82>] mutex_lock_nested+0x2e/0x36 > [ 7765.595050] [<c016f366>] perf_counter_for_each_sibling+0x50/0x7e > [ 7765.595067] [<c0172189>] perf_ioctl+0x18d/0x1de > [ 7765.595083] [<c019fa6e>] vfs_ioctl+0x27/0x6e > [ 7765.595100] [<c019ff4f>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x45a/0x48c > [ 7765.595116] [<c019ffb2>] sys_ioctl+0x31/0x4a > [ 7765.595132] [<c01032e8>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3c > [ 7765.595147] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff > [ 7765.595163] > [ 7765.595166] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 7765.595170] > [ 7765.595180] 1 lock held by perf/14176: > [ 7765.595188] #0: (&counter->child_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0172180>] perf_ioctl+0x184/0x1de > [ 7765.595215] > [ 7765.595218] stack backtrace: > [ 7765.595230] Pid: 14176, comm: perf Not tainted 2.6.30debug-03217-gf3ad116 #47 > [ 7765.595240] Call Trace: > [ 7765.595254] [<c033f7f9>] ? printk+0x14/0x16 > [ 7765.595271] [<c0146310>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5c/0x67 > [ 7765.595289] [<c0146e8c>] __lock_acquire+0x8b8/0xb11 > [ 7765.595306] [<c014719e>] lock_acquire+0xb9/0xdb > [ 7765.595322] [<c016f366>] ? perf_counter_for_each_sibling+0x50/0x7e > [ 7765.595338] [<c0340664>] __mutex_lock_common+0x42/0x3c8 > [ 7765.595354] [<c016f366>] ? perf_counter_for_each_sibling+0x50/0x7e > [ 7765.595371] [<c034099b>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x379/0x3c8 > [ 7765.595387] [<c0340a82>] mutex_lock_nested+0x2e/0x36 > [ 7765.595402] [<c016f366>] ? perf_counter_for_each_sibling+0x50/0x7e > [ 7765.595419] [<c016f366>] perf_counter_for_each_sibling+0x50/0x7e > [ 7765.595434] [<c0170f78>] ? perf_counter_enable+0x0/0xad > [ 7765.595449] [<c0171ffc>] ? perf_ioctl+0x0/0x1de > [ 7765.595464] [<c0170f78>] ? perf_counter_enable+0x0/0xad > [ 7765.595479] [<c0172189>] perf_ioctl+0x18d/0x1de > [ 7765.595494] [<c0171ffc>] ? perf_ioctl+0x0/0x1de > [ 7765.595509] [<c019fa6e>] vfs_ioctl+0x27/0x6e > [ 7765.595525] [<c019ff4f>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x45a/0x48c > [ 7765.595540] [<c0107003>] ? native_sched_clock+0x45/0x5e > [ 7765.595556] [<c0144a37>] ? put_lock_stats+0x1e/0x29 > [ 7765.595572] [<c0144af8>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0xb6/0xbb > [ 7765.595589] [<c0105e7b>] ? sys_mmap2+0x67/0x7f > [ 7765.595604] [<c0103321>] ? sysenter_exit+0xf/0x1a > [ 7765.595620] [<c019ffb2>] sys_ioctl+0x31/0x4a > [ 7765.595635] [<c01032e8>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3c
Right, good catch ;-)
Does this fix it?
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> --- diff --git a/kernel/perf_counter.c b/kernel/perf_counter.c index e914daf..35fa30b 100644 --- a/kernel/perf_counter.c +++ b/kernel/perf_counter.c @@ -1658,14 +1658,18 @@ static void perf_counter_for_each_child(struct perf_counter *counter, static void perf_counter_for_each(struct perf_counter *counter, void (*func)(struct perf_counter *)) { - struct perf_counter *child; + struct perf_counter_context *ctx = counter->ctx; + struct perf_counter *sibling; - WARN_ON_ONCE(counter->ctx->parent_ctx); - mutex_lock(&counter->child_mutex); - perf_counter_for_each_sibling(counter, func); - list_for_each_entry(child, &counter->child_list, child_list) - perf_counter_for_each_sibling(child, func); - mutex_unlock(&counter->child_mutex); + WARN_ON_ONCE(ctx->parent_ctx); + mutex_lock(&ctx->mutex); + counter = counter->group_leader; + + perf_counter_for_each_child(counter, func) + func(counter); + list_for_each_entry(sibling, &counter->sibling_list, list_entry) + perf_counter_for_each_child(counter, func) + mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex); } static int perf_counter_period(struct perf_counter *counter, u64 __user *arg)
> Peter: I guess you read both so it is probably not a real problem, > but you're listed in MAINTAINERS with two different emails.
Yeah, they all end up in the same mailbox ;-)
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |