On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:26:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:21:43PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:08:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > index 84530ab358c3..d76b724177b9 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > @@ -9772,6 +9772,14 @@ static int perf_try_init_event(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event *event)
> > > if (ctx)
> > > perf_event_ctx_unlock(event->group_leader, ctx);
> > >
> > > + if (!ret) {
> > > + if ((pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_EXCLUDE) ||
> > > + event_has_exclude_flags(event)) {
> > > + event->destroy(event);
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I don't quite follow this logic. Should that not have been:
> >
> > if (!(pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_EXCLUDE) &&
> > event_has_exclude_flags(event)) {
> >
> > Meaning that if an event has any exclude flags but the pmu doesn't
> > have the capability to handle them then error.
>
> Uhm, yes. Brainfart on my side that.
>
> > If you're happy with my proposed logic, then would it also make
> > sense to move this before the call to the pmu->event_init ?
>
> I'm not sure that can work; I think we need ->event_init() first such
> that it can -ENOENT. Only after ->event_init() returns success can we be
> certain of @pmu.
Ah yes I see now. Until event_init doesn't return -ENOENT we can't be sure
that this will be the PMU we use (as per the other calls to
perf_try_init_event in perf_init_event).
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
