From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org,
acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, leo.yan@arm.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Wang <00107082@163.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf/core: fix dangling cgroup pointer in cpuctx
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:39:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aD6YpfGz3MUfedHC@e129823.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aD6Xk2rdBjnVy6DA@e129823.arm.com>
> > > attach_state doesn't related for event->state change.
> > > if one event already cleared PERF_ATTACH_CONTEXT, that event is called
> > > via list_del_event()
> >
> > Maybe this concern could be clarified, what about other subtle impacts.
> > The change should be thorough reviewed, if you want to push it further.
> >
> > It takes me more than a month to figure out a procedure to reproduce the kernel panic bug,
> > It is just very hard to capture a bug happens in rare situation.
> >
> > And your patch has a global impact, it changes behavior unnecessarily.
>
> TBH, this patch just change of time of "event->state" while doing,
> As my bad miss the disable cgorup perf.
> I think there seems no other side effect for chaning state while in
> removing event.
> But, Let's wait for other people's review.
>
> > >
> > > Also, your patch couldn't solve a problem describe in
> > > commit a3c3c6667("perf/core: Fix child_total_time_enabled accounting bug at task exit")
> > > for INCATIVE event's total_enable_time.
> >
> > I do not think so.
> > Correct me if I am making silly mistakes,
> > The patch, https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250603032651.3988-1-00107082@163.com/
> > calls perf_event_set_state() based on DETACH_EXIT flag, which cover the INACTIVE state, right?
> > If DETACH_EXIT is not used for this purpose? Then why should it exist at the first place?
> > I think I does not revert the purpose of commit a3c3c6667.....But I could be wrong
> > Would you show a call path where DETACH_EXIT is not set, but the changes in commit a3c3c6667 is still needed?
>
> Sorry for my bad explaination without detail.
> Think about cpu specific event and closed by task.
> If there is specific child cpu event specified in cpu 0.
> 1. cpu 0 -> active
> 2. scheulded to cpu1 -> inactive
> 3. close the cpu event from parent -> inactive close
>
> Can be failed to count total_enable_time.
>
> Thanks.
And also, considering the your patch, for DETACH_EXIT case,
If it changes the state before list_del_event() that wouldn't disable
related to the cgroup. So it would make cpuctx->cgrp pointer could be dangled
as patch describe...
> --
> Sincerely,
> Yeoreum Yun
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-03 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-02 18:40 [PATCH 1/1] perf/core: fix dangling cgroup pointer in cpuctx Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 2:01 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 4:46 ` [PATCH " Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 5:44 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 6:34 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 6:39 ` Yeoreum Yun [this message]
2025-06-03 6:47 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 6:42 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 7:16 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 7:31 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 8:15 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 6:54 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 9:20 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 10:08 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 13:41 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-03 14:02 ` David Wang
2025-06-03 14:00 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-03 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-03 15:17 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-04 7:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 8:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 10:06 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-04 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 12:54 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-06-04 10:18 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-04 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 15:17 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-04 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-04 15:46 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-04 15:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 12:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 17:21 ` Leo Yan
2025-06-05 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-03 15:05 ` Yeoreum Yun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aD6YpfGz3MUfedHC@e129823.arm.com \
--to=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
--cc=00107082@163.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=leo.yan@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).