Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137022-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:47:29 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
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>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] perf: Enqueue SIGTRAP always via task_work.
Message-ID: <20240409134729.JpcBYOsK@linutronix.de>
References: <20240322065208.60456-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20240322065208.60456-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <ZhRhn1B0rMSNv6mV@pavilion.home>
 <20240409085732.FBItbOSO@linutronix.de>
 <ZhU2YwettB6i6AMp@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZhU2YwettB6i6AMp@localhost.localdomain>

On 2024-04-09 14:36:51 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > That wake_up() within preempt_disable() section breaks on RT.
> 
> Ah, but the wake-up still wants to go inside recursion protection somehow or
> it could generate task_work loop again due to tracepoint events...

okay.

> Although... the wake up occurs only when the event is dead after all...

corner case or not, it has to work, right?

> > How do we go on from here?
> 
> I'd tend to think you need my patchset first because the problems it
> fixes were not easily visible as long as there was an irq work to take
> care of things most of the time. But once you rely on task_work only then
> these become a real problem. Especially the sync against perf_release().

I don't mind rebasing on top of your series. But defaulting to task_work
is not an option then?

RT wise the irq_work is not handled in hardirq because of locks it
acquires and is handled instead in a thread. Depending on the priority
the task (receiving the event) it may run before the irq_work-thread.
Therefore the task_work looked neat because the event would be handled
_before_ the task returned to userland.

Couldn't we either flush _or_ remove the task_work in perf_release()?

> Thanks.
Sebastian