Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1306051
| From | Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function_call()ers |
| Date | 2016-01-11 11:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qPIcX-17S-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <qDtMm-4Ra-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGH6q-8ue-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGHJ8-Ah-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGIlQ-154-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qGZd0-3FA-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:07:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:25:14PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>>
>> > That aside, why I brought it up in the first place is because the two
>> > functions are asymmetric: one is called with irqs disabled and the
>> > other -- with ctx::lock held (and not because I'm into bikeshedding or
>> > anything like that). Looking at the pair of them sets off my "that's not
>> > right" trigger and sends me to the event_function_call()
>> > implementation. So in that sense, prepending an extra underscore kind of
>> > made sense. Maybe __perf_remove_from_context_{on,off}()?
>>
>> You are quite right, and I think I've found more problems because of
>> this. Let me prod at this some more.
>
> So this then...
>
> This fixes, I think, 3 separate bugs:
>
> - remove_from_context used to clear ->is_active, this is against the
> update rules from ctx_sched_in() which set ->is_active even though
> there might be !nr_events
>
> - install_in_context did bad things to cpuctx->task_ctx; it would not
> validate that ctx->task == current and could do random things because
> of that.
>
> - cpuctx->task_ctx tracking was iffy
>
> It also unifies a lot of the weird and fragile code we had around all
> those IPI calls and adds a bunch of assertions.
>
> It seems to survive a little pounding with 'normal' workloads.
>
> Please have an extra careful look..
I notice that you dropped this from your queue, do you have any plans to
proceed with this, or should I pick it up?
Regards,
--
Alex
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function_call()ers Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> - 2016-01-11 11:50 +0100
csiph-web