On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:03:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> In any case, I'll try and write a proper Changelog for this...
This is what I came up with, most of it should look familiar, its
copy/pasted bits from this thread.
---
Subject: perf: Fix sys_perf_event_open() vs hotplug
From: Pe
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:03:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:59:20PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:59:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > + * If we get a false negative, things are complicated. If we are after
> > > + * perf_event_c
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:59:20PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Sorry for the delay; this fell into my backlog over the holiday.
>
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:59:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So while I went back and forth trying to make that less ugly, I figured
> > there
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the delay; this fell into my backlog over the holiday.
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:59:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So while I went back and forth trying to make that less ugly, I figured
> there was another problem.
>
> Imagine the cpu_function_call() hitting the 'right
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:00:10PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 09:45:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 01:42:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > > What are you trying to order here?
> > >
> > > I suppose something like this:
> > >
> >
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 09:45:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 01:42:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > What are you trying to order here?
> >
> > I suppose something like this:
> >
> >
> > CPU0CPU1CPU2
> >
> > (current ==
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 01:42:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:46:40AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > @@ -2331,13 +2330,36 @@ perf_install_in_context(struct perf_event_context
> > > *ctx,
> > > /*
> > >* Installing events is tricky because we cannot rely on ctx
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:46:40AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > @@ -2331,13 +2330,36 @@ perf_install_in_context(struct perf_event_context
> > *ctx,
> > /*
> > * Installing events is tricky because we cannot rely on ctx->is_active
> > * to be set in case this is the nr_events 0 -> 1
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:59:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 07:34:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > @@ -2352,6 +2357,28 @@ perf_install_in_context(struct perf_event_context
> > *ctx,
> > return;
> > }
> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> >
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 07:34:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2352,6 +2357,28 @@ perf_install_in_context(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> return;
> }
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
> + if (!(task->state == TA
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 07:34:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:53:47PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > Jeremy noticed a kernel lockup on arm64 when the perf tool was used in
> > > pa
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:53:47PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Jeremy noticed a kernel lockup on arm64 when the perf tool was used in
> > parallel with hotplug, which I've reproduced on arm64 and x86(-64) with
> > v4
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Jeremy noticed a kernel lockup on arm64 when the perf tool was used in
> parallel with hotplug, which I've reproduced on arm64 and x86(-64) with
> v4.9-rc8. In both cases I'm using defconfig; I've tried enabling lockdep
> b
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:30:58PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Jeremy noticed a kernel lockup on arm64 when the perf tool was used in
> > parallel with hotplug, which I've reproduced on arm64 and x86(-64) with
> > v4
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Jeremy noticed a kernel lockup on arm64 when the perf tool was used in
> parallel with hotplug, which I've reproduced on arm64 and x86(-64) with
> v4.9-rc8. In both cases I'm using defconfig; I've tried enabling lockdep
> b
Hi all
Jeremy noticed a kernel lockup on arm64 when the perf tool was used in
parallel with hotplug, which I've reproduced on arm64 and x86(-64) with
v4.9-rc8. In both cases I'm using defconfig; I've tried enabling lockdep
but it was silent for arm64 and x86.
I haven't yet tested earlier kernels
16 matches
Mail list logo
