All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: kan.liang@linux.intel.com
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	bp@alien8.de, acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org,
	irogers@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ak@linux.intel.com, eranian@google.com,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH V8 4/6] perf/x86/lbr: Fix shorter LBRs call stacks for the system-wide mode
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:25:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250312182525.4078433-4-kan.liang@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250312182525.4078433-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>

From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>

In the system-wide mode, LBR callstacks are shorter in comparison to
the per-process mode.

LBR MSRs are reset during a context switch in the system-wide mode. For
the LBR call stack, the LBRs should be always saved/restored during a
context switch.

Use the space in task_struct to save/restore the LBR call stack data.

For a system-wide event, it's unnecessagy to update the
lbr_callstack_users for each threads. Add a variable in x86_pmu to
indicate whether the system-wide event is active.

Fixes: 76cb2c617f12 ("perf/x86/intel: Save/restore LBR stack during context switch")
Reported-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Reported-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Debugged-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c  | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 arch/x86/events/perf_event.h |  1 +
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
index dafeee216f3b..24719adbcd7e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -422,11 +422,17 @@ static __always_inline bool lbr_is_reset_in_cstate(void *ctx)
 	return !rdlbr_from(((struct x86_perf_task_context *)ctx)->tos, NULL);
 }
 
+static inline bool has_lbr_callstack_users(void *ctx)
+{
+	return task_context_opt(ctx)->lbr_callstack_users ||
+	       x86_pmu.lbr_callstack_users;
+}
+
 static void __intel_pmu_lbr_restore(void *ctx)
 {
 	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
 
-	if (task_context_opt(ctx)->lbr_callstack_users == 0 ||
+	if (!has_lbr_callstack_users(ctx) ||
 	    task_context_opt(ctx)->lbr_stack_state == LBR_NONE) {
 		intel_pmu_lbr_reset();
 		return;
@@ -503,7 +509,7 @@ static void __intel_pmu_lbr_save(void *ctx)
 {
 	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
 
-	if (task_context_opt(ctx)->lbr_callstack_users == 0) {
+	if (!has_lbr_callstack_users(ctx)) {
 		task_context_opt(ctx)->lbr_stack_state = LBR_NONE;
 		return;
 	}
@@ -543,6 +549,7 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_sched_task(struct perf_event_pmu_context *pmu_ctx,
 			      struct task_struct *task, bool sched_in)
 {
 	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
+	struct perf_ctx_data *ctx_data;
 	void *task_ctx;
 
 	if (!cpuc->lbr_users)
@@ -553,14 +560,18 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_sched_task(struct perf_event_pmu_context *pmu_ctx,
 	 * the task was scheduled out, restore the stack. Otherwise flush
 	 * the LBR stack.
 	 */
-	task_ctx = pmu_ctx ? pmu_ctx->task_ctx_data : NULL;
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	ctx_data = rcu_dereference(task->perf_ctx_data);
+	task_ctx = ctx_data ? ctx_data->data : NULL;
 	if (task_ctx) {
 		if (sched_in)
 			__intel_pmu_lbr_restore(task_ctx);
 		else
 			__intel_pmu_lbr_save(task_ctx);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
 		return;
 	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	/*
 	 * Since a context switch can flip the address space and LBR entries
@@ -589,9 +600,19 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_add(struct perf_event *event)
 
 	cpuc->br_sel = event->hw.branch_reg.reg;
 
-	if (branch_user_callstack(cpuc->br_sel) && event->pmu_ctx->task_ctx_data)
-		task_context_opt(event->pmu_ctx->task_ctx_data)->lbr_callstack_users++;
+	if (branch_user_callstack(cpuc->br_sel)) {
+		if (event->attach_state & PERF_ATTACH_TASK) {
+			struct task_struct *task = event->hw.target;
+			struct perf_ctx_data *ctx_data;
 
+			rcu_read_lock();
+			ctx_data = rcu_dereference(task->perf_ctx_data);
+			if (ctx_data)
+				task_context_opt(ctx_data->data)->lbr_callstack_users++;
+			rcu_read_unlock();
+		} else
+			x86_pmu.lbr_callstack_users++;
+	}
 	/*
 	 * Request pmu::sched_task() callback, which will fire inside the
 	 * regular perf event scheduling, so that call will:
@@ -665,9 +686,19 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_del(struct perf_event *event)
 	if (!x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
 		return;
 
-	if (branch_user_callstack(cpuc->br_sel) &&
-	    event->pmu_ctx->task_ctx_data)
-		task_context_opt(event->pmu_ctx->task_ctx_data)->lbr_callstack_users--;
+	if (branch_user_callstack(cpuc->br_sel)) {
+		if (event->attach_state & PERF_ATTACH_TASK) {
+			struct task_struct *task = event->hw.target;
+			struct perf_ctx_data *ctx_data;
+
+			rcu_read_lock();
+			ctx_data = rcu_dereference(task->perf_ctx_data);
+			if (ctx_data)
+				task_context_opt(ctx_data->data)->lbr_callstack_users--;
+			rcu_read_unlock();
+		} else
+			x86_pmu.lbr_callstack_users--;
+	}
 
 	if (event->hw.flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_LBR_SELECT)
 		cpuc->lbr_select = 0;
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
index 0d5019fb3ad2..67d2d250248c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
+++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
@@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ struct x86_pmu {
 		const int	*lbr_sel_map;	   /* lbr_select mappings */
 		int		*lbr_ctl_map;	   /* LBR_CTL mappings */
 	};
+	u64		lbr_callstack_users;	   /* lbr callstack system wide users */
 	bool		lbr_double_abort;	   /* duplicated lbr aborts */
 	bool		lbr_pt_coexist;		   /* (LBR|BTS) may coexist with PT */
 
-- 
2.38.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-03-12 18:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-12 18:25 [PATCH V8 1/6] perf: Save PMU specific data in task_struct kan.liang
2025-03-12 18:25 ` [PATCH V8 2/6] perf: attach/detach PMU specific data kan.liang
2025-03-12 19:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-03-12 19:52     ` Liang, Kan
2025-03-12 23:23   ` kernel test robot
2025-03-12 23:46   ` kernel test robot
2025-03-13 15:09     ` Nathan Chancellor
2025-03-13 23:06       ` Philip Li
2025-03-12 18:25 ` [PATCH V8 3/6] perf: Supply task information to sched_task() kan.liang
2025-03-13  4:32   ` kernel test robot
2025-03-12 18:25 ` kan.liang [this message]
2025-03-12 18:25 ` [PATCH V8 5/6] perf/x86: Remove swap_task_ctx() kan.liang
2025-03-12 18:25 ` [PATCH V8 6/6] perf: Clean up pmu specific data kan.liang
2025-03-12 19:05 ` [PATCH V8 1/6] perf: Save PMU specific data in task_struct Peter Zijlstra
2025-03-12 19:41   ` Liang, Kan
2025-03-12 19:43     ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250312182525.4078433-4-kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.