On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:29:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> @@ -788,9 +788,9 @@ int x86_schedule_events(struct cpu_hw_ev
>> x86_pmu.start_scheduling(cpuc);
>>
>> for (i = 0, wmin = X86_PMC_IDX_MAX, wmax = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> + cpuc->event_constraint[i] = NULL;
>
> ^^^ that is new, which is esp. important in light of the
> intel_get_event_constraints() hunk below, which would happily continue
> life with a garbage constraint.
>
You've moved the constraint list from event to cpuc. Yet, it is still
an array of pointers
to constraints. So here you are saying, that in the case validate_group() is
preempted and there is a context switch, there is still a risk of
overwriting the
constraint? I don't see how because validate_group() is using a fake_cpuc.
So yes, the cpuc->event_constraint[] array is modified but it is not the same
as the actual cpuc used by non-validate code. Or am I still missing something?
When using dynamic constraints, we already have constraint storage in cpuc
(to avoid calling kmalloc() in ctxsw context). Thus, I am wondering if it would
not be easier to always use cpuc for constraint storage (no more pointers).
>> c = x86_pmu.get_event_constraints(cpuc, i,
>> cpuc->event_list[i]);
>> + cpuc->event_constraint[i] = c;
>>
>> wmin = min(wmin, c->weight);
>> wmax = max(wmax, c->weight);
>
>
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> @@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static struct event_constraint *
>> intel_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx,
>> struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> - struct event_constraint *c1 = event->hw.constraint;
>> + struct event_constraint *c1 = cpuc->event_constraint[idx];
>> struct event_constraint *c2;
>>
>> /*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
