Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/core,x86: synchronize PMU task contexts on optimized context switches

[Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>]

On 22.10.2019 12:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:01:11AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> 
>>  			swap(ctx->task_ctx_data, next_ctx->task_ctx_data);
>>  
>> +			/*
>> +			 * PMU specific parts of task perf context can require
>> +			 * additional synchronization which makes sense only if
>> +			 * both next_ctx->task_ctx_data and ctx->task_ctx_data
>> +			 * pointers are allocated. As an example of such
>> +			 * synchronization see implementation details of Intel
>> +			 * LBR call stack data profiling;
>> +			 */
>> +			if (ctx->task_ctx_data && next_ctx->task_ctx_data)
>> +				pmu->sync_task_ctx(next_ctx->task_ctx_data,
>> +						   ctx->task_ctx_data);
> 
> This still does not check if pmu->sync_task_ctx is set. If any other
> arch ever uses task_ctx_data without then also supplying this method
> things will go *bang*.

Argh, and that is why it is documented as the optional one.
Undoubtedly, we have to avoid crashes on other architectures.
So "if (pmu->sync_task_ctx)" has to be a part of v5.

> 
> Also, I think I prefer the variant I gave you yesterday:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191021103745.GF1800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> 
> 	if (pmu->swap_task_ctx)
> 		pmu->swap_task_ctx(ctx, next_ctx);
> 	else
> 		swap(ctx->task_ctx_data, next_ctx->task_ctx_data);
> 
> That also unconfuses the argument order in your above patch (where you
> have to undo thw swap).

I would name the method sync_task_ctx not swap_task_ctx because sync reserves 
broader meaning, IMHO.

~Alexey