On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:49:57AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> So, are you ok with this?
yeah, that should work.
> diff --git a/kernel/events/callchain.c b/kernel/events/callchain.c
> index 1b2be63c8528..ee0ba22d3993 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/callchain.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/callchain.c
> @
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 04:45:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:31:30PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > > There's also a race against put_callchain_buffers() there, consider:
> > >
> > >
> > > get_callchain_buffers() put_callchain_buffers()
> > > mutex
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:47:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> > Sure, I mean the following code:
>> >
>> > mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
>> >
>> > coun
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:31:30PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > There's also a race against put_callchain_buffers() there, consider:
> >
> >
> > get_callchain_buffers() put_callchain_buffers()
> > mutex_lock();
> > inc()
> > dec_and
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:47:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Sure, I mean the following code:
> >
> > mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> >
> > count = atomic_inc_return(&nr_callchain_events);
> > if (WARN_O
Em Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:47:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Sure, I mean the following code:
> >
> > mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> >
> > count = atomic_inc_return(&nr_callchain_events);
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(c
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:47:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Sure, I mean the following code:
>
> mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
>
> count = atomic_inc_return(&nr_callchain_events);
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(count < 1)) {
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto exit;
>
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:11:56PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> From c12126c4ff9835f0899619db3ee7b4a3151ff2bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Namhyung Kim
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:54:50 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] perf/core: Fix overflow on perf_callchain_entry
>
> The commit 97c79a38cd45 add a c
Hi Arnaldo,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:37:40AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:11:56PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > Also I'm not sure that the allocation failure check would work
> > correctly since it decrements nr_callchain_events when it fails.
>
> Can
Em Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:11:56PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:37:12PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:20:26AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:32:19AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > >
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:37:12PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:20:26AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:32:19AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > FYI this happens in mainline kernel 4.15.0-rc1.
> > > It
Em Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:20:26AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:32:19AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > FYI this happens in mainline kernel 4.15.0-rc1.
> > It looks like a new regression and hard to bisect.
> >
> > It occurs in 1 out of 57 boots.
> >
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:32:19AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> FYI this happens in mainline kernel 4.15.0-rc1.
> It looks like a new regression and hard to bisect.
>
> It occurs in 1 out of 57 boots.
>
> [ 10.009610] chown (367) used greatest stack depth: 26944 bytes left
> Kernel
13 matches
Mail list logo
