public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
> 


  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