Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-138545-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:51:26 +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 3/4] perf: Remove perf_swevent_get_recursion_context()
 from perf_pending_task().
Message-ID: <20240410125126.X26tR8tM@linutronix.de>
References: <20240322065208.60456-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20240322065208.60456-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <ZhRqSEbyd1rqVwfN@pavilion.home>
 <20240409062501.h4rA_ck4@linutronix.de>
 <ZhUaAjhQXN6ahtpS@localhost.localdomain>
 <20240409105405.TXUU--_W@linutronix.de>
 <ZhUt8XMndGSwNuwx@localhost.localdomain>
 <20240409133336.Y4Io-16-@linutronix.de>
 <ZhZsOvM3uTP6nTnZ@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZhZsOvM3uTP6nTnZ@localhost.localdomain>

On 2024-04-10 12:38:50 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Anyway, I misunderstood the concept
> > before. That means we need to keep that counter here and a
> > migrate_disable() is needed to avoid CPU migration which is sad.
> 
> I fear that won't work either. The task is then pinned but another
> task can come up on that CPU and its software events will be ignored...

oh, right.

> Some alternatives:
> 
> _ Clear event->pending_work = 0 after perf_sigtrap(), preventing an
> event in there from adding a new task work. We may miss a signal though...
> 
> _ Make the recursion context per task on -RT...

The per-task counter would be indeed the easiest thing to do. But then
only for task context, right?

But why would we miss a signal if we clean event->pending_work late?
Isn't cleaning late same as clearing in
perf_swevent_put_recursion_context()?
If clearing pending_work late works, I would prefer to avoid yet another
per-task counter if possible.

> > > Thanks.

Sebastian