Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220824153901.488576-1-irogers@google.com> <20220824153901.488576-10-irogers@google.com>
 <2cf6edac-6e41-b43c-2bc1-f49cb739201a@intel.com> <CAP-5=fVVWx=LZAzXsxfuktPHwki1gYbV4mcmvJp_9GTDS6KJcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a9b4f79d-cdea-821e-0e57-cd4854de6cf4@intel.com> <CAP-5=fW7t9tcJpyUbv8JAo-BFna-KS6FC+HkbuGx6S=h+nBMqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <43540a3d-e64e-ec08-e12e-aebb236a2efe@intel.com> <CAM9d7chBnZtrKe6b8k+VYk1Nmz8YnNWSMmyLydH6+Otvw4xGeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b0f86189-be17-d1e7-d23c-692eeee2b5ec@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <b0f86189-be17-d1e7-d23c-692eeee2b5ec@intel.com>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:40:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ciroc1XzRL+W34D5G7kCp4KCzRxjyRqnO2OXj=-ZaMTLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/18] perf ui: Update use of pthread mutex
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Almeida?= <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Weiguo Li <liwg06@foxmail.com>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
        Dario Petrillo <dario.pk1@gmail.com>,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@huawei.com>,
        yaowenbin <yaowenbin1@huawei.com>,
        Wenyu Liu <liuwenyu7@huawei.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>,
        Pavithra Gurushankar <gpavithrasha@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>,
        William Cohen <wcohen@redhat.com>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=C5=A1ka?= <mliska@suse.cz>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@intel.com>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexey Bayduraev <alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com>,
        Riccardo Mancini <rickyman7@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Zechuan Chen <chenzechuan1@huawei.com>,
        Jason Wang <wangborong@cdjrlc.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        Remi Bernon <rbernon@codeweavers.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:21 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/08/22 22:00, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:53 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> >> Below seems adequate for now, at least logically, but maybe it
> >> would confuse clang thread-safety analysis?
> >
> > I think it's not just about locks, the exit_browser should bail out early
> > if the setup code was not called.
>
> In those cases, use_browser is 0 or -1 unless someone has inserted
> an invalid perf config like "tui.script=on" or "gtk.script=on".
> So currently, in cases where exit_browser() is called without
> setup_browser(), it does nothing.  Which means it is only the
> unconditional mutex_destroy() that needs to be conditional.

Yeah there's a possibility that it can be called with > 0 use_browser
on some broken config or something.  So I think it's safer and better
for future changes.

Thanks,
Namhyung