From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] perf: Fix a race between ring_buffer_detach() and ring_buffer_wakeup()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:58:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140313195816.GJ21124@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394199526-6400-1-git-send-email-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> This is more of a problem description than an actual bugfix, but currently
> ring_buffer_detach() can kick in while ring_buffer_wakeup() is traversing
> the ring buffer's event list, leading to cpu stalls.
>
> What this patch does is crude, but fixes the problem, which is: one rcu
> grace period has to elapse between ring_buffer_detach() and subsequent
> ring_buffer_attach(), otherwise either the attach will fail or the wakeup
> will misbehave. Also, making it a call_rcu() callback will make it race
> with attach().
>
> Another solution that I see is to check for list_empty(&event->rb_entry)
> before wake_up_all() in ring_buffer_wakeup() and restart the list
> traversal if it is indeed empty, but that is ugly too as there will be
> extra wakeups on some events.
>
> Anything that I'm missing here? Any better ideas?
Not sure it qualifies as "better", but git call to ring_buffer_detach()
is going to free the event anyway, so the synchronize_rcu() and the
INIT_LIST_HEAD() should not be needed in that case. I am guessing that
the same is true for perf_mmap_close().
So that leaves the call in perf_event_set_output(), which detaches from an
old rb before attaching that same event to a new one. So maybe have the
synchronize_rcu() and INIT_LIST_HEAD() instead be in the "if (old_rb)",
which might be a reasonably uncommon case?
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 661951a..bce41e0 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -3861,7 +3861,7 @@ static void ring_buffer_attach(struct perf_event *event,
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> if (list_empty(&event->rb_entry))
> - list_add(&event->rb_entry, &rb->event_list);
> + list_add_rcu(&event->rb_entry, &rb->event_list);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> }
>
> @@ -3873,9 +3873,11 @@ static void ring_buffer_detach(struct perf_event *event, struct ring_buffer *rb)
> return;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> - list_del_init(&event->rb_entry);
> + list_del_rcu(&event->rb_entry);
> wake_up_all(&event->waitq);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&event->rb_entry);
> }
>
> static void ring_buffer_wakeup(struct perf_event *event)
> --
> 1.9.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-13 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-07 13:38 [PATCH] [RFC] perf: Fix a race between ring_buffer_detach() and ring_buffer_wakeup() Alexander Shishkin
2014-03-13 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-03-14 9:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-14 20:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-03-14 22:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-14 23:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-03-15 0:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-03-17 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-17 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-03-17 17:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-18 2:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-03-18 8:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-07 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-07 18:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-08 15:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-08 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-19 12:48 ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf: Fix a race between ring_buffer_detach() and ring_buffer_attach() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
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=20140313195816.GJ21124@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.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