Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 15:26 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > Ah, I think I see how that works:
> 
> Hmm. I don't...
> 
> >
> >   __perf_event_task_sched_out()
> >     perf_event_context_sched_out()
> >       if (do_switch)
> >         cpuctx->task_ctx = NULL;
> 
> exactly, this clears ->task_ctx
> 
> > vs
> >
> >   __perf_install_in_context()
> >    if (cpu_ctx->task_ctx != ctx)
> 
> And then __perf_install_in_context() sets cpuctx->task_ctx = ctx,
> because ctx->task == current && cpuctx->task_ctx == NULL.

Hrm,. right, so the comment suggests it should do what it doesn't :-)

It looks like Paul's a63eaf34ae60bd (perf_counter: Dynamically allocate
tasks' perf_counter_context struct), relevant hunk below, wrecked it:

@@ -568,11 +582,17 @@ static void __perf_install_in_context(void *info)
         * If this is a task context, we need to check whether it is
         * the current task context of this cpu. If not it has been
         * scheduled out before the smp call arrived.
+        * Or possibly this is the right context but it isn't
+        * on this cpu because it had no counters.
         */
-       if (ctx->task && cpuctx->task_ctx != ctx)
-               return;
+       if (ctx->task && cpuctx->task_ctx != ctx) {
+               if (cpuctx->task_ctx || ctx->task != current)
+                       return;
+               cpuctx->task_ctx = ctx;
+       }
 
        spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags);
+       ctx->is_active = 1;
        update_context_time(ctx);
 
        /*


I can't really seem to come up with a sane test that isn't racy with
something, my cold seems to have clogged not only my nose :/