From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:45:28 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <365529974.156362.1647524728813.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220316224548.500123-3-namhyung@kernel.org>
----- On Mar 16, 2022, at 6:45 PM, Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org wrote:
> Adding the lock contention tracepoints in various lock function slow
> paths. Note that each arch can define spinlock differently, I only
> added it only to the generic qspinlock for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 3 +++
> kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 3 +++
> kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 9 +++++++++
> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 5 +++++
> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 11 +++++++++++
> kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c | 3 +++
> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 9 +++++++++
> kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> 8 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index ee2fd7614a93..c88deda77cf2 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -644,6 +644,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state,
> unsigned int subclas
> }
>
> set_current_state(state);
> + trace_contention_begin(lock, 0);
This should be LCB_F_SPIN rather than the hardcoded 0.
> for (;;) {
> bool first;
>
> @@ -710,6 +711,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state,
> unsigned int subclas
> skip_wait:
> /* got the lock - cleanup and rejoice! */
> lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
> + trace_contention_end(lock, 0);
>
> if (ww_ctx)
> ww_mutex_lock_acquired(ww, ww_ctx);
> @@ -721,6 +723,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state,
> unsigned int subclas
> err:
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> __mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
> + trace_contention_end(lock, ret);
> err_early_kill:
> raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> index c9fdae94e098..833043613af6 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/task.h>
> #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <trace/events/lock.h>
>
> int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
> const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
> @@ -154,6 +155,7 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore
> *sem, bool reader)
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&sem->waiters.lock);
>
> + trace_contention_begin(sem, LCB_F_PERCPU | (reader ? LCB_F_READ :
> LCB_F_WRITE));
> while (wait) {
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (!smp_load_acquire(&wq_entry.private))
> @@ -161,6 +163,7 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore
> *sem, bool reader)
> schedule();
> }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> + trace_contention_end(sem, 0);
So for the reader-write locks, and percpu rwlocks, the "trace contention end" will always
have ret=0. Likewise for qspinlock, qrwlock, and rtlock. It seems to be a waste of trace
buffer space to always have space for a return value that is always 0.
Sorry if I missed prior dicussions of that topic, but why introduce this single
"trace contention begin/end" muxer tracepoint with flags rather than per-locking-type
tracepoint ? The per-locking-type tracepoint could be tuned to only have the fields
that are needed for each locking type.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-17 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-16 22:45 [PATCH 0/2] locking: Add new lock contention tracepoints (v3) Namhyung Kim
2022-03-16 22:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] locking: Add lock contention tracepoints Namhyung Kim
2022-03-17 2:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-03-17 13:32 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-03-17 16:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-03-17 16:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-03-18 20:58 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-16 22:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path Namhyung Kim
2022-03-17 13:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2022-03-17 16:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-03-17 16:43 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-03-18 21:34 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-17 18:19 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-03-18 21:43 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-18 12:55 ` Boqun Feng
2022-03-18 13:24 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-03-18 13:28 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-03-18 16:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-03-18 21:55 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-18 22:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-03-19 0:11 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-22 5:31 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-22 12:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-03-22 16:39 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-17 17:32 ` [PATCH 0/2] locking: Add new lock contention tracepoints (v3) Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-03-18 21:12 ` Namhyung Kim
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-03-22 18:57 [PATCH 0/2] locking: Add new lock contention tracepoints (v4) Namhyung Kim
2022-03-22 18:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path Namhyung Kim
2022-03-28 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-03-28 17:41 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-28 11:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-03-28 17:48 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-30 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-03-30 19:03 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-03-31 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-01 6:26 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-04-01 9:25 ` 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=365529974.156362.1647524728813.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rburny@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.