From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756594AbZE2I2u (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2009 04:28:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755936AbZE2I2h (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2009 04:28:37 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:41616 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755498AbZE2I2h (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2009 04:28:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf_counter: Don't swap contexts containing locked mutex From: Peter Zijlstra To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1243584793.23657.168.camel@twins> References: <18975.31580.520676.619896@drongo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1243584388.23657.156.camel@twins> <1243584793.23657.168.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:28:41 +0200 Message-Id: <1243585721.23657.177.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > static struct perf_counter_ctx *pin_ctx(struct perf_counter *counter, u64 *old_gen) > > { > > struct perf_counter_context *ctx; > > unsigned long flags; > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > retry: > > ctx = rcu_dereference(counter->ctx); > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags); > > if (ctx != rcu_dereference(counter->ctx)) > > goto retry; > > > > *old_gen = ctx->generation; > > ctx->generation = ~0ULL; > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags); > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > return ctx; > > } > > > > static void unpin_ctx(struct perf_counter_ctx *ctx, u64 old_gen) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags); > > ctx->generation = old_gen; > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags); > > } > > OK, I think I got this wrong, counter->ctx isn't the problem. > task->perf_counter_ctx is. > > Still would be nice to write it in the above form. I'll go over the code > again to see who else might want it. OK, I went over the code, and your patch does indeed cover the few spots we need. It was just my brain going haywire and auditing the wrong pattern.