Message-ID: <54E60CA0.6020001@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:17:36 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, David Ahern <david.ahern@oracle.com>,
        acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix probing for PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC flag
References: <1424304072-91955-1-git-send-email-david.ahern@oracle.com> <54E58B64.9010902@intel.com> <54E5F963.50200@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E5F963.50200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2024
Lines: 48

On 19/02/2015 4:55 p.m., David Ahern wrote:
> On 2/19/15 12:06 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>       /* not supported, confirm error related to PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC */
>>> -    fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, pid, cpu, -1, 0);
>>> +    fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, 0, cpu, -1, 0);
>>
>> I would prefer to avoid pid = 0 unless necessary and so just do the same
>> thing again i.e.
>>
>>     while (1) {
>>         fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, pid, cpu, -1, 0);
>>         if (fd < 0 && pid == -1 && errno == EACCES) {
>>             pid = 0;
>>             continue;
>>         }
>>         break;
>>     }
>>
>
> The probing is getting of hand. In this case the intent is a probe for a flag
> and flags are the first thing checked kernel side. Given that the parameters
 > passed to sys_perf_event_open should be as simple and known safe as possible.
 > pid = -1 has known limitations. Why can't pid just be getpid() in both cases?
>
> Simplifies this function a lot and removes the need for sched_getcpu(). So
>      pid = getpid();
>
>      fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, pid, -1, -1, PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC);
>
> and if that fails
>
>      fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, pid, -1, -1, 0);
>
> Why is anything more complicated needed?

Yes, I am sorry it is a pain. I don't know why I didn't add a comment
to the code :-(. Using -1 for the pid is a workaround to avoid gratuitous
jump label changes. If pid=0 is used and then a system-wide trace is done
with Intel PT, there will be a jump label change shortly after the tracing
starts. That means the running code gets changed, but Intel PT decoding
has to walk the code to reconstruct the trace - so errors result. There
will always be occasional jump label changes, but this avoids one that
would otherwise always happen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/