From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, shaohua.li@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
mhocko@suse.cz, alex.shi@intel.com, efault@gmx.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 3.1
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:35:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1320683756.17809.28.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBTbWE6wVkg_sFnoVL0r4_yi6gCwCoUXzC97kxcxC47zYQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 16:16 +0000, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > So far nobody seems to have stated if this is an actual problem or just
> > shutting up lockdep-prove-rcu? I very much suspect the latter, in which
> > case I really utterly hate the patch because it adds instructions to
> > fast-paths just to kill a debug warning.
> >
> I think the core issue at stake here is not so much the cgroup disappearing.
> It cannot go away because it is ref counted (perf_events does the necessary
> css_get()/css_put()). But it is rather the task disappearing while we
> are operating
> on its state.
>
> I don't think task (prev or next) can disappear while we execute
> perf_cgroup_sched_out()/perf_cgroup_sched_in() because we are in the context
> switch code.
Right.
> What remains is:
> * update_cgrp_time_from_event()
> alway operates on current task
>
> * perf_cgroup_set_timestamp()
>
> - perf_event_task_tick() -> cpu_ctx_sched_in() but in this case
> it is on the current task
> - perf_event_task_sched_in() in context switch code so I assume
> it is safe
> - __perf_event_enable() but it is called on current
>
> - perf_cgroup_switch()
> * perf_cgroup_sched_in()/perf_cgroup_sched_out() -> context switch code
>
> * perf_cgroup_attach()
> called from cgroup code. Does not appear to hold task_lock().
> the routine already grabs the rcu_read_lock() but it that enough
> to guarantee the task cannot
> vanish. I would hope so, otherwise I think the cgroup attach
> code has a problem.
yeah, task_struct is rcu-freed
> In summary, unless I am mistaken, it looks to me that we may not need
> those new rcu_read_lock()
> calls after all.
>
> Does anyone have a different analysis?
The only other problem I could see is that perf_cgroup_sched_{in,out}
can race against perf_cgroup_attach_task() and make the wrong decision.
But then perf_cgroup_attach will call perf_cgroup_switch() to fix that
up again.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-07 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20110930204503.GA32687@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20111001152514.GA16930@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <20111003055302.GA23527@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <20111003161335.GA2403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2011-10-04 7:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-24 10:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-10-24 11:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-10-26 20:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-27 7:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-10-27 8:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-28 2:34 ` Li Zefan
2011-10-29 18:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-10-31 8:09 ` Li Zefan
2011-10-31 9:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-01 2:37 ` Li Zefan
2011-11-02 19:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-02 19:55 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-03 12:50 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-04 8:44 ` Li Zefan
2011-11-04 9:02 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 14:24 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 14:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-11-07 14:44 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-11-07 16:16 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-11-07 16:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-07 17:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-11-07 17:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-08 13:10 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 17:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-11-07 17:12 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 17:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-11-07 17:50 ` Stephane Eranian
2011-11-07 17:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-07 17:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=1320683756.17809.28.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome