[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] perf/core: fix a possible deadlock scenario
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:12:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> hrtimer_cancel() busy-waits for the hrtimer callback to stop,
> pretty much like del_timer_sync(). This creates a possible deadlock
> scenario where we hold a spinlock before calling hrtimer_cancel()
> while in trying to acquire the same spinlock in the callback.

Has this actually been observed?

> cpu_clock_event_init():
> perf_swevent_init_hrtimer():
> hwc->hrtimer.function = perf_swevent_hrtimer;
> perf_swevent_hrtimer():
> __perf_event_overflow():
> __perf_event_account_interrupt():
> perf_adjust_period():
> pmu->stop():
> cpu_clock_event_stop():
> perf_swevent_cancel():
> hrtimer_cancel()

Please explain how a hrtimer event ever gets to perf_adjust_period().
Last I checked perf_swevent_init_hrtimer() results in attr.freq=0.

> Getting stuck in an hrtimer is a disaster:

You'll get NMI watchdog splats. Getting stuck in NMI context is far more
'interesting :-)

> +#define PERF_EF_NO_WAIT 0x08 /* do not wait when stopping, for
> + * example, waiting for a timer
> + */

That's a broken comment style.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 13:53    [W:0.099 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site