forked from Minki/linux
perf/core: Fix ctx::mutex deadlock
Lockdep noticed the following 3-way lockup scenario: sys_perf_event_open() perf_event_alloc() perf_try_init_event() #0 ctx = perf_event_ctx_lock_nested(1) perf_swevent_init() swevent_hlist_get() #1 mutex_lock(&pmus_lock) perf_event_init_cpu() #1 mutex_lock(&pmus_lock) #2 mutex_lock(&ctx->mutex) sys_perf_event_open() mutex_lock_double() #2 mutex_lock() #0 mutex_lock_nested() And while we need that perf_event_ctx_lock_nested() for HW PMUs such that they can iterate the sibling list, trying to match it to the available counters, the software PMUs need do no such thing. Exclude them. In particular the swevent triggers the above invertion, while the tpevent PMU triggers a more elaborate one through their event_mutex. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
43fa87f7de
commit
0c7296cad6
@ -9199,7 +9199,13 @@ static int perf_try_init_event(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event *event)
|
||||
if (!try_module_get(pmu->module))
|
||||
return -ENODEV;
|
||||
|
||||
if (event->group_leader != event) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* A number of pmu->event_init() methods iterate the sibling_list to,
|
||||
* for example, validate if the group fits on the PMU. Therefore,
|
||||
* if this is a sibling event, acquire the ctx->mutex to protect
|
||||
* the sibling_list.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (event->group_leader != event && pmu->task_ctx_nr != perf_sw_context) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* This ctx->mutex can nest when we're called through
|
||||
* inheritance. See the perf_event_ctx_lock_nested() comment.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user