From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mingo@elte.hu, "Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: perf_events: question about __perf_event_read()
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:18:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1295633925.28776.308.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikX=tQwYKj9VZhCNudErf4TP-74+Jv3WPvSdUMn@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:06 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the code below still has a problem in case of a per-cpu event.
>
> If you issue a read() on a different CPU, then you IPI to the event's cpu.
> By the time you get there, the event may be de-scheduled in which
> case you don't want to issue event->pmu_read() nor update context
> timings. The function has a test but it seems to be checking the per-cpu
> case only.
>
> I have seen panics on P4 with this code because it goes all the way
> down to rdmsrl() with a bogus counter index (like -1).
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
> static void __perf_event_read(void *info)
> {
> struct perf_event *event = info;
> struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
> struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
>
> /*
> * If this is a task context, we need to check whether it is
> * the current task context of this cpu. If not it has been
> * scheduled out before the smp call arrived. In that case
> * event->count would have been updated to a recent sample
> * when the event was scheduled out.
> */
> if (ctx->task && cpuctx->task_ctx != ctx)
> return;
>
> raw_spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
Shouldn't we re-check event->state once we hold this lock?
> update_context_time(ctx);
> update_event_times(event);
> raw_spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
>
> event->pmu->read(event);
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-21 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-21 18:06 Stephane Eranian
2011-01-21 18:18 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-01-21 18:25 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-01-26 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-26 14:50 ` Stephane Eranian
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1295633925.28776.308.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®