Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 20:05 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 19:49 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please see the untested patch below. It doesn't change perf_event_enable(),
> > > > only perf_install_in_context().
> > >
> > > Forgot to mention... Also, it doesn't try to fix the race with do_exit(),
> > > this needs another change.
> > >
> > > And, damn, can't resist. This is mostly cosmetic issue, but I feel
> > > discomfort every time I look at task_oncpu_function_call(). It _looks_
> > > obviously wrong, even if the problem doesn't exist in practice. I'll
> > > send the pedantic fix to keep the maintainers busy ;)
> >
> > I've been trying to sit down and work my way through it today, your last
> > suggestion very nearly seemed to make sense, but I kept getting
> > distracted.
> >
> > FWIW I think perf_event_enable() has the very same issue...

Yes, yes, note the "doesn't change perf_event_enable()" above.

In fact, I _suspect_ perf_event_enable() has more problems, but
I need to recheck.

> +void task_function_trampoline(void *data)
> +{
> +	struct task_function_call *tfc = data;
> +
> +	if (this_rq()->curr != tfc->p)
> +		return;

Yes, I was thinking about checking rq->curr too, but this doesn't
really help. This closes the race with "prev", but we have the similar
race with "next".

__perf_install_in_context() should not set ->task_ctx before next
does perf_event_context_sched_in(). Otherwise it will do nothing,
it checks cpuctx->task_ctx == ctx.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/