From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
kan.liang@linux.intel.com, davidcc@google.com,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf/core: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->ctx.nr_cgroups == 0) in perf_cgroup_switch
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:00:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250604100052.GH38114@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250604033924.3914647-3-luogengkun@huaweicloud.com>
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 03:39:24AM +0000, Luo Gengkun wrote:
> There may be concurrency between perf_cgroup_switch and
> perf_cgroup_event_disable. Consider the following scenario: after a new
> perf cgroup event is created on CPU0, the new event may not trigger
> a reprogramming, causing ctx->is_active to be 0. In this case, when CPU1
> disables this perf event, it executes __perf_remove_from_context->
> list _del_event->perf_cgroup_event_disable on CPU1, which causes a race
> with perf_cgroup_switch running on CPU0.
>
> The following describes the details of this concurrency scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> perf_cgroup_switch:
> ...
> # cpuctx->cgrp is not NULL here
> if (READ_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp) == NULL)
> return;
>
> perf_remove_from_context:
> ...
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> ...
> # ctx->is_active == 0 because reprogramm is not
> # tigger, so CPU1 can do __perf_remove_from_context
> # for CPU0
> __perf_remove_from_context:
> perf_cgroup_event_disable:
> ...
> if (--ctx->nr_cgroups)
> ...
>
> # this warning will happened because CPU1 changed
> # ctx.nr_cgroups to 0.
> WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->ctx.nr_cgroups == 0);
>
> To fix this problem, expand the lock-holding critical section in
> perf_cgroup_switch.
>
> Fixes: db4a835601b7 ("perf/core: Set cgroup in CPU contexts for new cgroup events")
> Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@huaweicloud.com>
> ---
Right, so how about we simply re-check the condition once we take the
lock?
Also, take the opportunity to convert to guard instead of adding goto
unlock.
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -207,6 +207,19 @@ static void perf_ctx_unlock(struct perf_
__perf_ctx_unlock(&cpuctx->ctx);
}
+typedef struct {
+ struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
+ struct perf_event_context *ctx;
+} class_perf_ctx_lock_t;
+
+static inline void class_perf_ctx_lock_destructor(class_perf_ctx_lock_t *_T)
+{ perf_ctx_unlock(_T->cpuctx, _T->ctx); }
+
+static inline class_perf_ctx_lock_t
+class_perf_ctx_lock_constructor(struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx,
+ struct perf_event_context *ctx)
+{ perf_ctx_lock(cpuctx, ctx); return (class_perf_ctx_lock_t){ cpuctx, ctx }; }
+
#define TASK_TOMBSTONE ((void *)-1L)
static bool is_kernel_event(struct perf_event *event)
@@ -944,7 +957,13 @@ static void perf_cgroup_switch(struct ta
if (READ_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp) == cgrp)
return;
- perf_ctx_lock(cpuctx, cpuctx->task_ctx);
+ guard(perf_ctx_lock)(cpuctx, cpuctx->task_ctx);
+ /*
+ * Re-check, could've raced vs perf_remove_from_context().
+ */
+ if (READ_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp) == NULL)
+ return;
+
perf_ctx_disable(&cpuctx->ctx, true);
ctx_sched_out(&cpuctx->ctx, NULL, EVENT_ALL|EVENT_CGROUP);
@@ -962,7 +981,6 @@ static void perf_cgroup_switch(struct ta
ctx_sched_in(&cpuctx->ctx, NULL, EVENT_ALL|EVENT_CGROUP);
perf_ctx_enable(&cpuctx->ctx, true);
- perf_ctx_unlock(cpuctx, cpuctx->task_ctx);
}
static int perf_cgroup_ensure_storage(struct perf_event *event,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-04 10:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-04 3:39 [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix perf cgroup problem Luo Gengkun
2025-06-04 3:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] perf/core: Fix nr_cgroups/cpuctx->cgrp is not updated correctly Luo Gengkun
2025-06-04 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 9:42 ` Luo Gengkun
2025-06-04 3:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] perf/core: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->ctx.nr_cgroups == 0) in perf_cgroup_switch Luo Gengkun
2025-06-04 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-06-05 3:55 ` Luo Gengkun
2025-06-05 7:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-11 9:29 ` [tip: perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix WARN in perf_cgroup_switch() tip-bot2 for Luo Gengkun
2025-06-26 13:08 ` Luo Gengkun
2025-06-26 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20250604100052.GH38114@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davidcc@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luogengkun@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.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®