From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vince@deater.net,
eranian@google.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function_call()ers
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:34:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151203173431.GC3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1449138762-15194-3-git-send-email-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:32:37PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> +static int
> +remote_call_or_ctx_lock(struct perf_event *event, remote_function_f func,
> + void *info, enum perf_event_active_state retry_state)
> +{
> + struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
> + struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
> + unsigned int retry = 1;
> +
> + if (!task) {
> + /*
> + * Per cpu events are removed via an smp call. The removal can
> + * fail if the CPU is currently offline, but in that case we
> + * already called __perf_remove_from_context from
> + * perf_event_exit_cpu.
> + */
> + cpu_function_call(event->cpu, func, info);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> + do {
> + /*
> + * Reload the task pointer, it might have been changed by
> + * a concurrent perf_event_context_sched_out().
> + */
> + task = ctx->task;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the context is inactive, we don't need a cross call to
> + * fiddle with the event so long as the ctx::lock is held.
> + */
> + if (!ctx->is_active)
> + break;
> +
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> +
> + if (!task_function_call(task, func, info))
> + return 0;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> +
> + if (retry_state <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE)
> + retry = event->state == retry_state;
> + } while (retry);
OK, so the retry_state thing is clever, but either I'm too tired or its
not quite right. Nor do I think its actually required.
/me frobs...
Hmm, I cannot seem to convince myself the current code is correct to
begin with.
In any case, consider the below (on top of my previous collapse patch).
The two 'hard' cases are perf_event_{dis,en}able(), those appear to play
silly games with event->state.
So starting with perf_event_disable(); we don't strictly need to test
for event->state == ACTIVE, ctx->is_active is enough. If the event is
not scheduled while the ctx is, __perf_event_disable() still does the
right thing. Its a little less efficient to IPI in that case, over-all
simpler.
For perf_event_enable(); the same goes, but I think that's actually
broken in its current form. The current condition is: ctx->is_active &&
event->state == OFF, that means it doesn't do anything when !ctx->active
&& event->state == OFF. This is wrong, it should still mark the event
INACTIVE in that case, otherwise we'll still not try and schedule the
event once the context becomes active again.
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -1766,6 +1766,20 @@ int __perf_event_disable(void *info)
return 0;
}
+void ___perf_event_disable(void *info)
+{
+ struct perf_event *event = info;
+
+ /*
+ * Since we have the lock this context can't be scheduled
+ * in, so we can change the state safely.
+ */
+ if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE) {
+ update_group_times(event);
+ event->state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF;
+ }
+}
+
/*
* Disable a event.
*
@@ -1782,43 +1796,16 @@ int __perf_event_disable(void *info)
static void _perf_event_disable(struct perf_event *event)
{
struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
- struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
-
- if (!task) {
- /*
- * Disable the event on the cpu that it's on
- */
- cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_event_disable, event);
- return;
- }
-
-retry:
- if (!task_function_call(task, __perf_event_disable, event))
- return;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
- /*
- * If the event is still active, we need to retry the cross-call.
- */
- if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE) {
+ if (event->state <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF) {
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
- /*
- * Reload the task pointer, it might have been changed by
- * a concurrent perf_event_context_sched_out().
- */
- task = ctx->task;
- goto retry;
- }
-
- /*
- * Since we have the lock this context can't be scheduled
- * in, so we can change the state safely.
- */
- if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE) {
- update_group_times(event);
- event->state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF;
+ return;
}
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
+
+ event_function_call(event, __perf_event_disable,
+ ___perf_event_disable, event);
}
/*
@@ -2269,6 +2256,11 @@ static int __perf_event_enable(void *inf
return 0;
}
+void ___perf_event_enable(void *info)
+{
+ __perf_event_mark_enabled((struct perf_event *)info);
+}
+
/*
* Enable a event.
*
@@ -2281,58 +2273,26 @@ static int __perf_event_enable(void *inf
static void _perf_event_enable(struct perf_event *event)
{
struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
- struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
- if (!task) {
- /*
- * Enable the event on the cpu that it's on
- */
- cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_event_enable, event);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
+ if (event->state >= PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE) {
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
return;
}
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
- if (event->state >= PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE)
- goto out;
-
/*
* If the event is in error state, clear that first.
- * That way, if we see the event in error state below, we
- * know that it has gone back into error state, as distinct
- * from the task having been scheduled away before the
- * cross-call arrived.
+ *
+ * That way, if we see the event in error state below, we know that it
+ * has gone back into error state, as distinct from the task having
+ * been scheduled away before the cross-call arrived.
*/
if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ERROR)
event->state = PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF;
-
-retry:
- if (!ctx->is_active) {
- __perf_event_mark_enabled(event);
- goto out;
- }
-
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
- if (!task_function_call(task, __perf_event_enable, event))
- return;
-
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
-
- /*
- * If the context is active and the event is still off,
- * we need to retry the cross-call.
- */
- if (ctx->is_active && event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF) {
- /*
- * task could have been flipped by a concurrent
- * perf_event_context_sched_out()
- */
- task = ctx->task;
- goto retry;
- }
-
-out:
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
+ event_function_call(event, __perf_event_enable,
+ ___perf_event_enable, event);
}
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-03 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-03 10:32 [PATCH 0/7] perf: Untangle aux refcounting Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 1/7] perf: Refuse to begin aux transaction after aux_mmap_count drops Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function_call()ers Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-12-08 16:42 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-08 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-17 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-17 14:25 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-17 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-18 9:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-18 15:07 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-18 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-18 17:41 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-21 14:39 ` Alexander Shishkin
2016-01-11 10:44 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 3/7] perf: Add a helper to stop running events Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 4/7] perf: Free aux pages in unmap path Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-04 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-04 22:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-07 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-09 9:57 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-09 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-10 11:20 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-10 12:58 ` Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 5/7] perf: Document aux api usage Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 20:36 ` Mathieu Poirier
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 6/7] perf/x86/intel/pt: Move transaction start/stop to pmu start/stop callbacks Alexander Shishkin
2015-12-03 10:32 ` [PATCH 7/7] perf/x86/intel/bts: Move transaction start/stop to " Alexander Shishkin
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=20151203173431.GC3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@infradead.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=vince@deater.net \
/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