/* * Copyright 2014, Michael Ellerman, IBM Corp. * Licensed under GPLv2. */ #define _GNU_SOURCE #include #include #include #include #include #include #include "event.h" #include "lib.h" #include "utils.h" /* * Test that per-event excludes work. */ static int per_event_excludes(void) { struct event *e, events[4]; char *platform; int i; platform = (char *)get_auxv_entry(AT_BASE_PLATFORM); FAIL_IF(!platform); SKIP_IF(strcmp(platform, "power8") != 0); /* * We need to create the events disabled, otherwise the running/enabled * counts don't match up. */ e = &events[0]; event_init_opts(e, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS, PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, "instructions"); e->attr.disabled = 1; e = &events[1]; event_init_opts(e, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS, PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, "instructions(k)"); e->attr.disabled = 1; e->attr.exclude_user = 1; e->attr.exclude_hv = 1; e = &events[2]; event_init_opts(e, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS, PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, "instructions(h)"); e->attr.disabled = 1; e->attr.exclude_user = 1; e->attr.exclude_kernel = 1; e = &events[3]; event_init_opts(e, PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS, PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, "instructions(u)"); e->attr.disabled = 1; e->attr.exclude_hv = 1; e->attr.exclude_kernel = 1; FAIL_IF(event_open(&events[0])); /* * The open here will fail if we don't have per event exclude support, * because the second event has an incompatible set of exclude settings * and we're asking for the events to be in a group. */ for (i = 1; i < 4; i++) FAIL_IF(event_open_with_group(&events[i], events[0].fd)); /* * Even though the above will fail without per-event excludes we keep * testing in order to be thorough. */ prctl(PR_TASK_PERF_EVENTS_ENABLE); /* Spin for a while */ for (i = 0; i < INT_MAX; i++) asm volatile("" : : : "memory"); prctl(PR_TASK_PERF_EVENTS_DISABLE); for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { FAIL_IF(event_read(&events[i])); event_report(&events[i]); } /* * We should see that all events have enabled == running. That * shows that they were all on the PMU at once. */ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) FAIL_IF(events[i].result.running != events[i].result.enabled); /* * We can also check that the result for instructions is >= all the * other counts. That's because it is counting all instructions while * the others are counting a subset. */ for (i = 1; i < 4; i++) FAIL_IF(events[0].result.value < events[i].result.value); for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) event_close(&events[i]); return 0; } int main(void) { return test_harness(per_event_excludes, "per_event_excludes"); } rm>
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorIago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu>2017-01-11 14:00:21 +0100
committerVinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>2017-01-25 15:35:11 +0530
commit91539eb1fda2d530d3b268eef542c5414e54bf1a (patch)
tree960f5ca6342ad20837aff18aad6e8ecd7da32fd6 /drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fusb300_udc.c
parent6610d0edf6dc7ee97e46ab3a538a565c79d26199 (diff)
dmaengine: pl330: fix double lock
The static bug finder EBA (http://www.iagoabal.eu/eba/) reported the following double-lock bug: Double lock: 1. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at pl330_free_chan_resources:2236; 2. call to function `pl330_release_channel' immediately after; 3. call to function `dma_pl330_rqcb' in line 1753; 4. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at dma_pl330_rqcb:1505. I have fixed it as suggested by Marek Szyprowski. First, I have replaced `pch->lock' with `pl330->lock' in functions `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' and `pl330_free_chan_resources'. This avoids the double-lock by acquiring a different lock than `dma_pl330_rqcb'. NOTE that, as a result, `pl330_free_chan_resources' executes `list_splice_tail_init' on `pch->work_list' under lock `pl330->lock', whereas in the rest of the code `pch->work_list' is protected by `pch->lock'. I don't know if this may cause race conditions. Similarly `pch->cyclic' is written by `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' under `pl330->lock' but read by `pl330_tx_submit' under `pch->lock'. Second, I have removed locking from `pl330_request_channel' and `pl330_release_channel' functions. Function `pl330_request_channel' is only called from `pl330_alloc_chan_resources', so the lock is already held. Function `pl330_release_channel' is called from `pl330_free_chan_resources', which already holds the lock, and from `pl330_del'. Function `pl330_del' is called in an error path of `pl330_probe' and at the end of `pl330_remove', but I assume that there cannot be concurrent accesses to the protected data at those points. Signed-off-by: Iago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu> Reviewed-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fusb300_udc.c')