Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:03 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > But, it seems, there is another problem. Forget about the exiting,
> > > I can't understand why we can trust current in the code above.
> > > With __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW schedule() does:
> > > 
> > >     // sets cpuctx->task_ctx = NULL
> > >     perf_event_task_sched_out();
> > > 
> > >     // enables irqs
> > >     prepare_lock_switch();
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     // updates current_task
> > >     switch_to();
> > > 
> > > What if IPI comes in the window before switch_to() ?
> > > 
> > > (the same questions for __perf_event_enable).
> > 
> > Ingo, do you have any insights in that, I think you wrote all that
> > initially?
> 
> Not sure. Can an IPI come there - we have irqs disabled usually, dont we?

Ah, I think I see how that works:

  __perf_event_task_sched_out()
    perf_event_context_sched_out()
      if (do_switch)
        cpuctx->task_ctx = NULL;

vs

  __perf_install_in_context()
   if (cpu_ctx->task_ctx != ctx)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/