lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 3.1
From
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 17:12 +0000, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> I think on that path:
>>
>> >>> [<8108aa02>] perf_event_enable_on_exec+0x1d2/0x1e0
>> >>> [<81063764>] ? __lock_release+0x54/0xb0
>> >>> [<8108cca8>] perf_event_comm+0x18/0x60
>> >>> [<810d1abd>] ? set_task_comm+0x5d/0x80
>> >>> [<81af622d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1d/0x40
>> >>> [<810d1ac4>] set_task_comm+0x64/0x80
>>
>> We are neither holding the rcu_read_lock() nor the task_lock() but we
>> are operating on the current task. The task cannot just vanish. So
>> the rcu_dereference() and lock_is_held() macros may detect a false
>> positive in that case. Yet, I doubt this would be the only place....
>
> Well, normally being current doesn't guarantee your cgroup won't
> disappear. The perf stuff hwoever takes refs and is synced against
> ->attach() by virtue of it calling perf_cgroup_switch() etc..
>
perf_event_enable_on_exec()
perf_cgroup_sched_out(current, NULL);
perf_cgroup_from_task(current)
task_subsys_state(current, perf_subsys_id)

That is the sequence triggering the warning.
Obviously, we come here without task_lock() nor rcu_read_lock().

The cgroup cannot disappear because it is refcounted by perf_events.
The task cannot disappear because it's the current task.

So I think we need to simply quiesce the warning, most likely like
what Peter just suggested.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-07 18:53    [W:1.132 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site