Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Right, so the fact of introducing extra scheduling makes me feel
> uncomfortable... the whole purpose is to observe without perturbing (as
> much as possible).

Yes, agreed.

Well, otoh the patch removes the code which sets ->task_ctx from
__perf_install_in_context() and __perf_event_enable(), and perhaps
we could simplify the things further, but anyway I agree.

> Should I think suffice to get the ctx in sync with the task state, we've
> got the following cases:
>  1) task is in the middle of scheduling in
>  2) task is in the middle of scheduling out
>  3) task is running
>
> Without __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPT_ON_CTXSW everything is boring and works,
> 1: the IPI will be delayed until 3, 2: the IPI finds another task and
> the next schedule in will sort things.
>
> With, however, things are more interesting. 2 seems to be adequately
> covered by the patch I just send, the IPI will bail and the next
> sched-in of the relevant task will pick matters up. 1 otoh doesn't seem
> covered, the IPI will bail, leaving us stranded.

Hmm, yes... Strangely, I missed that when I was thinking about in_ctxsw.

Perhaps, we can change task_oncpu_function_call() so that it returns
-EAGAIN in case it hits in_ctxsw != 0? If the caller sees -EAGAIN, it
should always retry even if !ctx->is_active.

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/