Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:39:22 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf cgroups: Fix perf_cgroup_switch schedule in warning |
| |
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? > > 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
| |