Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-138721-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 16:06:33 +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: <20240410140633.0MHBLpMI@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>
 <20240409134729.JpcBYOsK@linutronix.de>
 <ZhZ54XAcBt50WEnE@localhost.localdomain>
 <20240410134702.dcWYciZB@linutronix.de>
 <ZhabcanCbQej1azv@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <ZhabcanCbQej1azv@localhost.localdomain>

On 2024-04-10 16:00:17 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 03:47:02PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior a =C3=
=A9crit :
> > On 2024-04-10 13:37:05 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Couldn't we either flush _or_ remove the task_work in perf_release(=
)?
> > >=20
> > > Right so the problem in perf_release() is that we may be dealing with=
 task works
> > > of other tasks than current. In that case, task_work_cancel() is fine=
 if it
> > > successes. But if it fails, you don't have the guarantee that the tas=
k work
> > > isn't concurrently running or about to run. And you have no way to kn=
ow about
> > > that. So then you need some sort of flushing indeed.
> >=20
> > Since perf_release() preemptible, a wait/sleep for completion would be
> > best (instead of flushing).
>=20
> Like this then?
>=20
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202403310406.TPrIela8-lkp@intel.com/T/#m63c28=
147d8ac06b21c64d7784d49f892e06c0e50

Kind of, yes. Do we have more than one waiter? If not, maybe that
rcuwait would work then.
Otherwise (>1 waiter) we did establish that we may need a per-task
counter for recursion handling so preempt-disable shouldn't be a problem
then. The pending_work_wq must not be used outside of task context (means
no hardirq or something like that).

Sebastian