Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 17:57 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > 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.

That would be very easy to do, we can pass a return value through the
task_function_call structure.
--
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/