lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] perf tools: Add dso__data_get/put_fd()
On 20/05/2015 6:34 p.m., Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:33:09AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 20/05/15 09:34, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> Using dso__data_fd() in multi-thread environment is not safe since
>>> returned fd can be closed and/or reused anytime. So convert it to the
>>> dso__data_get/put_fd() pair to protect the access with lock.
>>
>> This is good, but ideally dso__data_open_lock should be a rwlock.
>
> Agreed. But as far as I can see, it might be a recursive mutex since
> it needs to allow to call dso__data_* functions while keeping fd open
> (ie. the dso__data_open_lock held).

Unless there are 'nolock' variants ;-)

>
>>
>>>
>>> The original dso__data_fd() is deprecated and kept only for testing.
>>
>> Maybe move it into perf/tests/dso-data.c since that seems to be the only caller.
>
> Okay.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> tools/perf/util/dso.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>> tools/perf/util/dso.h | 9 ++++++--
>>> tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>> 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/dso.c b/tools/perf/util/dso.c
>>> index 21fae6908717..5227e41925c2 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/dso.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/dso.c
>>> @@ -471,27 +471,49 @@ static void try_to_open_dso(struct dso *dso, struct machine *machine)
>>> }
>>>
>>> /**
>>> - * dso__data_fd - Get dso's data file descriptor
>>> + * dso__data_get_fd - Get dso's data file descriptor
>>> * @dso: dso object
>>> * @machine: machine object
>>> *
>>> * External interface to find dso's file, open it and
>>> - * returns file descriptor.
>>> + * returns file descriptor. Should be paired with
>>> + * dso__data_put_fd().
>>> */
>>> -int dso__data_fd(struct dso *dso, struct machine *machine)
>>> +int dso__data_get_fd(struct dso *dso, struct machine *machine)
>>> {
>>> + pthread_mutex_lock(&dso__data_open_lock);
>>
>> I would check the return on all lock functions and consider failure to be an
>> error. i.e.
>>
>> if (pthread_mutex_lock(&dso__data_open_lock))
>> return -1;
>
> Ah, forgot to check the locking operation itself. So do you suggest
> that we should check the return value of the locking in every place?

Sure. Could print an error too.

>
>
>>> +
>>> if (dso->data.status == DSO_DATA_STATUS_ERROR)
>>> return -1;
>>
>> The status check can be done before taking the lock.
>
> Right. But I did it this way since I'd like to make sure to grab the
> lock unconditionally when calling the get() function. See below.
>

Can change that though ;-)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-20 18:21    [W:0.042 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site