lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] perf/core: Fix installing cgroup event into cpu
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 04:32:38PM +0800, Lin Xiulei wrote:
> >> kernel/events/core.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> >> index 4df5b69..f766b60 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> >> @@ -933,31 +933,36 @@ list_update_cgroup_event(struct perf_event *event,
> >> {
> >> struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
> >> struct list_head *cpuctx_entry;
> >> + struct perf_cgroup *cgrp;
> >>
> >> if (!is_cgroup_event(event))
> >> return;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Because cgroup events are always per-cpu events,
> >> * this will always be called from the right CPU.
> >> */
> >> cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
> >> + cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(current, ctx);
> >>
> >> + /* cpuctx->cgrp is NULL unless a cgroup event is running in this CPU .*/
> >> + if (cgroup_is_descendant(cgrp->css.cgroup, event->cgrp->css.cgroup)) {
> >> + if (add)
> >> cpuctx->cgrp = cgrp;
> >> + else
> >> + cpuctx->cgrp = NULL;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + if (add && ctx->nr_cgroups++)
> >> + return;
> >> + else if (!add && --ctx->nr_cgroups)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + cpuctx_entry = &cpuctx->cgrp_cpuctx_entry;
> >> + if (add)
> >> + list_add(cpuctx_entry, this_cpu_ptr(&cgrp_cpuctx_list));
> >> + else
> >> + list_del(cpuctx_entry);
> >> }
> >
> > I'm a little confused; you unconditionally set cpuctx->cgrp for every
> > add/delete.
> >
> > So if we have >1 cgroup events on, and we remove one, you still clear
> > cpuctx->cgrp, that seems wrong.
> >
> > Why did you change that? The Changelog doesn't include enough clues for
> > me to know what you were trying to do.
>
> if we have > 1 cgroup events on, whenever a cgroup was really to be
> deleted, only if this cgroup is the same as the cgroup running on this
> cpu, I would clear cpuctx->cgrp.

But that might still be too early, we might still have more cgroup
events active.

What goes wrong if we leave it set?

> Here is the problem, previous version didn't set cpuctx->cgrp anymore
> if ctx->nr_cgroups > 1, which cases a second event would not be
> activated immediately because cpuctx->cgrp isn't equal to event->cgrp
> at event_filter_match()

OK, I think I can see that happening. Please clarify the Changelog and
maybe put a comment in the code as well.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-24 10:15    [W:0.044 / U:2.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site