From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix uncore_box ref/unref ordering on CPU hotplug
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 09:16:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d01e4434-7a6a-4e40-9118-39ede3288273@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <254ffa5b-58b7-4eb4-b944-a59c0bc67f2a@intel.com>
On 6/4/2026 12:40 AM, Chen, Zide wrote:
>
> On 6/2/2026 9:32 PM, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
>> On 6/2/2026 1:01 AM, Zide Chen wrote:
>>> In uncore_event_cpu_online(), uncore_box_ref() was called before
>>> uncore_change_context(). uncore_box_ref() gates on box->cpu >= 0,
>>> but box->cpu is still -1 at that point because uncore_change_context()
>>> has not run yet. As a result, the box is never initialized on the
>>> first CPU to come online in a die, leaving it permanently
>>> uninitialized in the single-CPU-per-die case.
>>>
>>> Thus, box->refcnt is one count below the true value, and in the CPU
>>> offline path, the box will be torn down on the second-to-last CPU.
>>>
>>> In uncore_event_cpu_offline(), uncore_box_unref() was called after
>>> uncore_change_context(), so box->cpu is already -1 when the collector
>>> CPU goes offline, which prevents it from tearing down the box.
>>>
>>> Fix by swapping the call order in both paths so that
>>> uncore_box_{ref,unref}() runs at the point where box->cpu reflects
>>> the correct context.
>>>
>>> Fixes: c74443d92f68 ("perf/x86/uncore: Support per PMU cpumask")
>>> Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
>>> index f2cb3fde2dda..6d710aef52ac 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
>>> @@ -1577,9 +1577,15 @@ static int uncore_event_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>>> {
>>> int die, target;
>>>
>>> + /* Clear the references */
>>> + die = topology_logical_die_id(cpu);
>>> + uncore_box_unref(uncore_msr_uncores, die);
>>> + uncore_box_unref(uncore_mmio_uncores, die);
>>> +
>>> /* Check if exiting cpu is used for collecting uncore events */
>>> if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &uncore_cpu_mask))
>>> - goto unref;
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> /* Find a new cpu to collect uncore events */
>>> target = cpumask_any_but(topology_die_cpumask(cpu), cpu);
>>>
>>> @@ -1592,16 +1598,10 @@ static int uncore_event_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>>> uncore_change_context(uncore_msr_uncores, cpu, target);
>>> uncore_change_context(uncore_mmio_uncores, cpu, target);
>>> uncore_change_context(uncore_pci_uncores, cpu, target);
>>> -
>>> -unref:
>>> - /* Clear the references */
>>> - die = topology_logical_die_id(cpu);
>>> - uncore_box_unref(uncore_msr_uncores, die);
>>> - uncore_box_unref(uncore_mmio_uncores, die);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int allocate_boxes(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>> +static void allocate_boxes(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>> unsigned int die, unsigned int cpu)
>>> {
>>> struct intel_uncore_box *box, *tmp;
>>> @@ -1618,8 +1618,10 @@ static int allocate_boxes(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>> if (pmu->boxes[die] || uncore_pmu_broken(pmu))
>>> continue;
>>> box = uncore_alloc_box(type, cpu_to_node(cpu));
>>> - if (!box)
>>> + if (!box) {
>>> + uncore_pmu_set_broken(pmu);
>>> goto cleanup;
>>> + }
>>> box->pmu = pmu;
>>> box->dieid = die;
>>> list_add(&box->active_list, &allocated);
>>> @@ -1630,14 +1632,13 @@ static int allocate_boxes(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>> list_del_init(&box->active_list);
>>> box->pmu->boxes[die] = box;
>>> }
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return;
>>>
>>> cleanup:
>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(box, tmp, &allocated, active_list) {
>>> list_del_init(&box->active_list);
>>> kfree(box);
>>> }
>>> - return -ENOMEM;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int uncore_box_ref(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>> @@ -1646,11 +1647,7 @@ static int uncore_box_ref(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>> struct intel_uncore_type *type;
>>> struct intel_uncore_pmu *pmu;
>>> struct intel_uncore_box *box;
>>> - int i, ret;
>>> -
>>> - ret = allocate_boxes(types, die, cpu);
>>> - if (ret)
>>> - return ret;
>>> + int i;
>>>
>>> for (; *types; types++) {
>>> type = *types;
>>> @@ -1666,27 +1663,26 @@ static int uncore_box_ref(struct intel_uncore_type **types,
>>>
>>> static int uncore_event_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
>>> {
>>> - int die, target, msr_ret, mmio_ret;
>>> + int die, target;
>>>
>>> die = topology_logical_die_id(cpu);
>>> - msr_ret = uncore_box_ref(uncore_msr_uncores, die, cpu);
>>> - mmio_ret = uncore_box_ref(uncore_mmio_uncores, die, cpu);
>>> + allocate_boxes(uncore_msr_uncores, die, cpu);
>>> + allocate_boxes(uncore_mmio_uncores, die, cpu);
>> allocate_boxes() are moved to uncore_event_cpu_online() from
>> uncore_box_ref(). It's a significant and good change since PCI uncore PMUs
>> doesn't call allocate_boxes(), but the commit message doesn't mention this.
>> We'd better extract this change to a separate patch which would make the
>> changes clearer. Thanks.
> All the functions involved in this patch are not called in PCI PMUs, and
> the call graph is not complicated with only one or two callers for each
> of them.
>
> Splitting it into two patches may be overkill; additionally, it may lose
> the big picture and make it harder to understand the overall flow.
Ok, if we still prefer keep them in same patch, please mention the movement
of allocate_boxes() in the change log. Thanks.
>> Others look good to me.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Check if there is an online cpu in the package
>>> * which collects uncore events already.
>>> */
>>> target = cpumask_any_and(&uncore_cpu_mask, topology_die_cpumask(cpu));
>>> - if (target < nr_cpu_ids)
>>> - return 0;
>>> -
>>> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &uncore_cpu_mask);
>>> -
>>> - if (!msr_ret)
>>> + if (target >= nr_cpu_ids) {
>>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &uncore_cpu_mask);
>>> uncore_change_context(uncore_msr_uncores, -1, cpu);
>>> - if (!mmio_ret)
>>> uncore_change_context(uncore_mmio_uncores, -1, cpu);
>>> - uncore_change_context(uncore_pci_uncores, -1, cpu);
>>> + uncore_change_context(uncore_pci_uncores, -1, cpu);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + uncore_box_ref(uncore_msr_uncores, die, cpu);
>>> + uncore_box_ref(uncore_mmio_uncores, die, cpu);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-04 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-01 17:01 [PATCH v2 0/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: PMU setup robustness fixes Zide Chen
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 1/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix PCI PMU cleanup on setup failure Zide Chen
2026-06-02 7:24 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 2/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix refcnt and other cleanups Zide Chen
2026-06-02 9:52 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-02 14:16 ` Chen, Zide
2026-06-03 1:13 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-03 15:09 ` Chen, Zide
2026-06-04 1:00 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-04 15:41 ` Chen, Zide
2026-06-05 0:30 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 3/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Let init_box() callback report failures Zide Chen
2026-06-02 9:57 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 4/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Keep PCI PMUs working when MMIO/MSR setup fails Zide Chen
2026-06-03 1:24 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 5/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Factor out box setup code Zide Chen
2026-06-03 1:30 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 6/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Introduce PMU flags and broken state Zide Chen
2026-06-03 2:13 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-03 15:46 ` Chen, Zide
2026-06-04 1:15 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 7/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix uncore_box ref/unref ordering on CPU hotplug Zide Chen
2026-06-03 2:32 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-06-03 16:40 ` Chen, Zide
2026-06-04 1:16 ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2026-06-01 17:01 ` [PATCH V2 8/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Implement lazy setup for MSR/MMIO PMU Zide Chen
2026-06-03 2:43 ` Mi, Dapeng
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=d01e4434-7a6a-4e40-9118-39ede3288273@linux.intel.com \
--to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=zide.chen@intel.com \
/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