From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
To: 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
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Wang <00107082@163.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf/core: fix dangling cgroup pointer in cpuctx
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:16:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aD6hVAuHGNZjrKpr@e129823.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4939eff.64be.19734874658.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
Hi David,
> >
> > >
> > > Also, your patch couldn't solve a problem describe in
> > > commit a3c3c6667("perf/core: Fix child_total_time_enabled accounting bug at task exit")
> > > for INCATIVE event's total_enable_time.
> >
> > I do not think so.
> > Correct me if I am making silly mistakes,
> > The patch, https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250603032651.3988-1-00107082@163.com/
> > calls perf_event_set_state() based on DETACH_EXIT flag, which cover the INACTIVE state, right?
> > If DETACH_EXIT is not used for this purpose? Then why should it exist at the first place?
> > I think I does not revert the purpose of commit a3c3c6667.....But I could be wrong
> > Would you show a call path where DETACH_EXIT is not set, but the changes in commit a3c3c6667 is still needed?
> >
> > Sorry for my bad explaination without detail.
> > Think about cpu specific event and closed by task.
> > 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.
>
> Is this explaining the purpose of commit a3c3c6667 ?
> I am not arguing with it. And I also not suggest reverting it. (it is just that reverting it can fix the kernel panic.)
In commit a3c3c6667, I explain the specific case but not with above
case. But the commit's purpose is "account total_enable_time" properly.
> > And also, considering the your patch, for DETACH_EXIT case,
> > If it changes the state before list_del_event() that wouldn't disable
> > related to the cgroup. So it would make cpuctx->cgrp pointer could be dangled
> > as patch describe...
> No, I don't think so.
> change state before list_del_event(), this is the same behavior before commit a3c3c6667, right?
> And no such kernel panic happened before commit a3c3c6667.
That's why list_del_event() handle the perf_cgroup_disable() before the
commit a3c3c6667. However because of *my mistake*, I've forget to
perf_cgroup_disable() properly before change the event state.
Yes, your patch can make avoid the panic since as soon as exit,
the event->cgrp switched.
However, as I said, the INACTIVE event could be failed to count
total_enable_time.
So, set event should be occured before list_del_event().
And since it's event->state change on remove.
It shouldn't have any side effect the state change isn't cause of your
panic. But missed perf_cgroup_disable().
Thanks.
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-03 7:17 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 [this message]
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
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=aD6hVAuHGNZjrKpr@e129823.arm.com \
--to=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
--cc=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 \
/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®