lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v0 3/5] perf: Introduce instruction trace filtering
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 03:36:36PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> >> +static int perf_event_itrace_filters_setup(struct perf_event *event)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * We can't use event_function_call() here, because that would
> >> + * require ctx::mutex, but one of our callers is called with
> >> + * mm::mmap_sem down, which would cause an inversion, see bullet
> >> + * (2) in put_event().
> >> + */
> >> + do {
> >> + if (READ_ONCE(event->state) != PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE) {
> >> + ret = event->pmu->itrace_filter_setup(event);
> >> + break;
> >
> > So this is tricky, if its not active it can be any moment, there is
> > nothing serializing against that.
>
> Indeed. But we should be able to call pmu::itrace_filter_setup()
> multiple times, so if after this we re-check that the event is still
> inactive, we can return, otherwise proceed with the cross-call. Does
> this make sense?

Dunno, I worry :-)

What if:

if (READ_ONCE(event->state) != PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE) {
// we were INACTIVE, but now the event gets scheduled in
// on _another_ CPU
event->pmu->itrace_filter_setup() := {
if (event->state == PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE) {
/* muck with hardware */
}
}
}

Here too I feel a strict validation vs programming split would make sense.

We can always call the validation thing, we must not call the program
thing !ACTIVE is a clear and simple rule.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-11 16:41    [W:0.044 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site