Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1271186
| From | Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier |
| Date | 2015-11-17 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvOEi-5DR-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <qvMCt-4n1-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvMMa-4qX-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvNyy-4XK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvNIe-50X-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvNRU-54p-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tuesday 17 November 2015 06:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:07:08PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On Tuesday 17 November 2015 05:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>>> BTW since we are on the topic we have this loop in stack unwinder which can >>>>> potentially cause RCU stalls, actual lockups etc. I was planning to add the >>>>> following - does that seem fine to you. >>> Worries me more than anything. How could you get stuck in there? >> >> No we not getting stuck in there - but this has potential to - if say unwind info >> were corrupt (not seen that ever though). > > Better put in a failsafe for that anyway, just out of sheer paranoia :-) Indeed, loop for say 32 times at max or some such. > You should never report more than PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH thingies anyway, > so once you've done that many loops, you're good to bail, right? Yeah, although I need to ensure if arch code needs to check that. Plus the unwinder is also used for things like ps wchan, /proc/<pid>/stack, crash dump etc. >> The old code won't even respond to say a Ctrl+C if it were stuck ! >> Plus the reschedule there will keeps sched happy when say unraveling deep stack >> frames with perf ? > > You're likely to call this code from interrupt/NMI context, there is no > ^C or scheduling going to help you there. For perf case, but there are other uses of unwinder as described above. So in light of above, do u think that the cond_resched() + signal_pending check is not needed and the bail if over N iters will be fine ! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2015-11-17 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-17 12:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2015-11-17 12:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-17 13:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2015-11-17 13:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-17 13:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2015-11-17 14:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] ARC: [plat-eznps] replace sync with proper cpu barrier Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-17 15:00 +0100
csiph-web