From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0641C4646D for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE2121A52 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:34:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5FE2121A52 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1733258AbeHFSoc (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:44:32 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:35360 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729230AbeHFSoc (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:44:32 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9443B7C6A9; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:34:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.34.27.30]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A0E21049492; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:34:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:34:36 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Jiri Olsa , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Milind Chabbi , lkml , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , David Ahern , Alexander Shishkin , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] perf/hw_breakpoint: Remove superfluous bp->attr.disabled = 0 new attr has disabled set Message-ID: <20180806163436.GH7840@redhat.com> References: <20180806101241.6444-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <20180806101241.6444-3-jolsa@kernel.org> <20180806124839.GC7840@redhat.com> <20180806132353.GA7463@krava> <20180806150836.GD16446@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180806150836.GD16446@krava> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.3 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Mon, 06 Aug 2018 16:34:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Mon, 06 Aug 2018 16:34:39 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.3' DOMAIN:'int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'oleg@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/06, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > Once the breakpoint was succesfully modified, the attr->disabled > value is in bp->attr.disabled. So there's no reason to set it > again, removing that. > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-v5oaellzsmyszv3rfucuxkp0@git.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa > --- > kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > index fb229d9c7f3c..3e560d7609fd 100644 > --- a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > +++ b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > @@ -526,10 +526,9 @@ int modify_user_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp, struct perf_event_attr *att > if (err) > return err; > > - if (!attr->disabled) { > + if (!attr->disabled) > perf_event_enable(bp); > - bp->attr.disabled = 0; > - } > + Yes, but again, this still looks confusing. IMO, we should either remove "bp->attr.disabled = attr->disabled" in modify_user_hw_breakpoint_check() because bp->attr.disabled is not really used, or we should set bp->attr.disabled = 1 on failure just for consistency. Hmm... actually ptrace_get_dr7() checks ->attr.disabled, so we can hit WARN_ON(second_pass) in ptrace_write_dr7() in case when attr.disabled is falsely 0 because modify_user_hw_breakpoint_check() failed before? It seems I am totally confused and need to sleep ;) Oleg.