Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99246-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240308175810.2894694-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <Ze7eKgdajyEgQcpL@elver.google.com> <20240311155927.sbWzLN62@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20240311155927.sbWzLN62@linutronix.de>
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:31:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNNXd6rL10Vju-tsa1aPsCSMykmfoMg1E1_B-DwKVQw_2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf: Make SIGTRAP and __perf_pending_irq() work on RT.
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, 
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 16:59, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-11 11:34:18 [+0100], Marco Elver wrote:
> > Unfortunately there's a bug in it somewhere. It can be reproduced with
> > tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/remove_on_exec.
> >
> > (FWIW, the kselftests in that directory are more aggressive test cases
> > that I never figured out how to properly port to the 'perf test'
> > framework: sigtrap_threads is a more aggressive version of the 'sigtrap=
'
> > perf test, and remove_on_exec has no perf test counterpart.)
>
> You posted to warnings, I can only reproduce the second one. Based on the
> backtrace it is obvious what happens and I dare to say that I know why=E2=
=80=A6
> Let me try address them.

I guess I got lucky with hitting 2 warnings instantly. It might be
necessary to run remove_on_exec several times, or even start several
instances of it concurrently (something like "for x in {0..100}; do
(./remove_on_exec &); done" might do the trick).