Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Fix warning from concurrent read/write of perf_event_pmu_context

From: James Clark
Date: Wed Feb 01 2023 - 05:49:29 EST




On 31/01/2023 13:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:31:41PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>
>> @@ -4897,32 +4895,32 @@ static void free_epc_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
>> static void put_pmu_ctx(struct perf_event_pmu_context *epc)
>> {
>> unsigned long flags;
>> + struct perf_event_context *ctx = epc->ctx;
>>
>> - if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&epc->refcount))
>> + /*
>> + * XXX
>> + *
>> + * lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->mutex);
>> + *
>> + * can't because of the call-site in _free_event()/put_event()
>> + * which isn't always called under ctx->mutex.
>> + */
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags);
>> + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&epc->refcount)) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags);
>> return;
>> + }
>
> This is a bit of an anti-pattern and better donw using dec_and_lock. As
> such, I'll fold the below into it.
>

Yep that looks better. Thanks Peter.

> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -476,6 +476,15 @@ extern int _atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave(
> #define atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave(atomic, lock, flags) \
> __cond_lock(lock, _atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave(atomic, lock, &(flags)))
>
> +extern int _atomic_dec_and_raw_lock(atomic_t *atomic, raw_spinlock_t *lock);
> +#define atomic_dec_and_raw_lock(atomic, lock) \
> + __cond_lock(lock, _atomic_dec_and_raw_lock(atomic, lock))
> +
> +extern int _atomic_dec_and_raw_lock_irqsave(atomic_t *atomic, raw_spinlock_t *lock,
> + unsigned long *flags);
> +#define atomic_dec_and_raw_lock_irqsave(atomic, lock, flags) \
> + __cond_lock(lock, _atomic_dec_and_raw_lock_irqsave(atomic, lock, &(flags)))
> +
> int __alloc_bucket_spinlocks(spinlock_t **locks, unsigned int *lock_mask,
> size_t max_size, unsigned int cpu_mult,
> gfp_t gfp, const char *name,
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -4901,11 +4901,8 @@ static void put_pmu_ctx(struct perf_even
> * can't because of the call-site in _free_event()/put_event()
> * which isn't always called under ctx->mutex.
> */
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, flags);
> - if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&epc->refcount)) {
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, flags);
> + if (!atomic_dec_and_raw_lock_irqsave(&epc->refcount, &ctx->lock, flags))
> return;
> - }
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&epc->pmu_ctx_entry));
>
> --- a/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> +++ b/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> @@ -49,3 +49,34 @@ int _atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave(atomic_
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(_atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave);
> +
> +int _atomic_dec_and_raw_lock(atomic_t *atomic, raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> + /* Subtract 1 from counter unless that drops it to 0 (ie. it was 1) */
> + if (atomic_add_unless(atomic, -1, 1))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Otherwise do it the slow way */
> + raw_spin_lock(lock);
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(atomic))
> + return 1;
> + raw_spin_unlock(lock);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_atomic_dec_and_raw_lock);
> +
> +int _atomic_dec_and_raw_lock_irqsave(atomic_t *atomic, raw_spinlock_t *lock,
> + unsigned long *flags)
> +{
> + /* Subtract 1 from counter unless that drops it to 0 (ie. it was 1) */
> + if (atomic_add_unless(atomic, -1, 1))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Otherwise do it the slow way */
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, *flags);
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(atomic))
> + return 1;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, *flags);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(_atomic_dec_and_raw_lock_irqsave);