From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: "Yeoreum Yun" <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org,
acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, leo.yan@arm.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
kan.liang@linux.intel.com, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf/core: fix dangling cgroup pointer in cpuctx
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:02:03 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45723708.beca.197361963d8.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aD77ih5zOrZyXVit@e129823.arm.com>
At 2025-06-03 21:41:30, "Yeoreum Yun" <yeoreum.yun@arm.com> wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>> >
>> > > But to fix it, isn't following change less aggressive?
>> > > event_sched_out(event, ctx);
>> > > - perf_event_set_state(event, min(event->state, state));
>> > > if (flags & DETACH_GROUP)
>> > > perf_group_detach(event);
>> > > if (flags & DETACH_CHILD)
>> > > perf_child_detach(event);
>> > > list_del_event(event, ctx);
>> > > + perf_event_set_state(event, min(event->state, state));
>> >
>> > If perf_child_detach() is called first and perf_event_set_state() call,
>> > since the parent is removed in perf_child_detatced,
>> > It would be failed to account the total_enable_time which caculating
>> > child_event's enable_time too.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying this,
>> So the whole point in commit a3c3c6667 is to make perf_event_set_state() happens before perf_child_detach(), right?
>> I feel I got lost somewhere when I rush to this suggestion. But I still don't understand why my patchv1 breaks commit
>> a3c3c6667, really confused.
>
>I explained this in:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5d17f1d7.666d.197348b78d1.Coremail.00107082@163.com/
>
>>> If there is specific child cpu event specified in cpu 0.
>>> 1. cpu 0 -> active
>>> 2. scheulded to cpu1 -> inactive
>>> 3. close the cpu event from parent -> inactive close
>>>
>>> Can be failed to count total_enable_time.
>
>
>Consider one event which attached to taskctx with specific cpu.
>In case of your original patch is for only "DETACH_EXIT" case.
>Here what I mean, the event is "closed".
>In this case, based on your patch, it doesn't call the perf_event_set_state()
>before list_del_event(), but perf_event_set_state() is called after list_del_event().
Do you mean in this case, the event is not passed to perf_event_exit_event()?
Because in my mind, as long as a event reach perf_event_exit_event, DETACH_EXIT flag would always be set.
perf_event_exit_event()
---> perf_remove_from_context(event, detach_flags | DETACH_EXIT); <---
---> __perf_remove_from_context
----> perf_event_set_state (DETACH_EXIT is always set in this call path)
----> list_del_event
So I am still confused, even with cpu switch, the DETACH_EXIT flag is still there.
Could you explain it with a callchain?
Thanks
David
>
>Thanks
>
>--
>Sincerely,
>Yeoreum Yun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-03 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-02 18:40 Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 2:01 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 4:46 ` [PATCH " Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 5:44 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 6:34 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 6:39 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 6:47 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 6:42 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 7:16 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 7:31 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 8:15 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 6:54 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 9:20 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 10:08 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 13:41 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 14:02 ` David Wang [this message]
2025-06-03 14:00 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-03 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-03 15:17 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-04 7:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 8:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 10:06 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-04 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 12:54 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-04 10:18 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-04 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 15:17 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-11 9:29 ` [tip: perf/urgent] perf: Add comment to enum perf_event_state tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 14:16 ` [PATCH 1/1] perf/core: fix dangling cgroup pointer in cpuctx Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 15:46 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-04 15:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 12:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 17:21 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-11 9:29 ` [tip: perf/urgent] perf: Fix cgroup state vs ERROR tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 11:41 ` [PATCH 1/1] perf/core: fix dangling cgroup pointer in cpuctx Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-03 15:05 ` Yeoreum Yun
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=45723708.beca.197361963d8.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
--to=00107082@163.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=leo.yan@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=yeoreum.yun@arm.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®