On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 07:51:53PM +0000, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -3745,18 +3757,20 @@ static void perf_event_task_ctx(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
>
> static void perf_event_task_event(struct perf_task_event *task_event)
> {
> - struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
> struct perf_event_context *ctx = task_event->task_ctx;
> + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
> + struct pmu *pmu;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - cpuctx = &get_cpu_var(perf_cpu_context);
> - perf_event_task_ctx(&cpuctx->ctx, task_event);
> + rcu_read_lock_sched();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(pmu, &pmus, entry) {
> + cpuctx = this_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
> + perf_event_task_ctx(&cpuctx->ctx, task_event);
> + }
> if (!ctx)
> ctx = rcu_dereference(current->perf_event_ctxp);
So, you say below that it works because synchronize_srcu(), that
waits for qs after touching pmus, implies synchronize_sched(), right?
And I guess you picked rcu_read_lock_sched() here because that preempt_disable()
at the same time.
That looks complicated but I guess that works.
That said there is also this rcu_dereference(current->perf_event_ctxp).
Now, this ctx is released after srcu barrier right? So this should
be srcu_dereference(). But then you seem to actually use rcu_read_lock_sched()
as it's compatible, so this should be rcu_dereference_sched() ?
With the current state, rcu will whine.
Moreover there seem to be too much game between the different rcu
flavours here, and that breaks the reviewers parsing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|