Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] perf: Enqueue SIGTRAP always via task_work.

["Lai, Yi" <yi1.lai@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 01:08:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-11-08 23:26:36 [+0100], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Please see
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/1440816150.8932.123.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com/
> > > and the whole thread.
> 
> Thank you for this Oleg.
> 
> > > I don't think raw_spin_lock_irq + cmpxchg for each work is a good
> > > idea, but quite possibly I misunderstood this change.
> > 
> > I did not realize there could be gazillion files released in a row. So there
> > could be noticeable performance issues I guess...
> 
> I made a testcase to open 2M (2 *10^6) files and then exit. This led
> task_work_run() run 2M + 3 callbacks (+ stdin/out/err) for the task.
> 
> Running 70 samples on the "orig" kernel:
> - avg callback time 1.156.470,3 us
> - 63 samples are starting with 11 (1,1 sec) avg: 1.128.046,7 us
> - 6 samples are starting with 14 (1,4 sec) avg: 1.435.294,8us
> 
> Running 70 samples on the "patched" kernel:
> - avg callback time 1.278.938,8 us
> - 59 samples are starting with 12 (1,2 sec) avg: 1.230.189,1 us
> - 10 samples are starting with 15 (1,5sec) avg: 1.555.934,5 us
> 
> With the extra lock the task_work_run() runtime extends by approximately
> ~122ms for the 2M invoked callbacks. 
> The spike 1,1sec -> 1,4sec or 1,2sec -> 1,5 sec is due to context
> switching (there are few cond_resched()/ might_sleep()).
> 
> It is not that bad, is it?
>

Hi,

Do we reach consensus about the fix? The issue can still be reproduced
using v6.13-rc1 kernel. Call trace:

[  300.429498]  ? lock_acquire+0x80/0xb0
[  300.429695]  ? schedule+0x216/0x3f0
[  300.429888]  schedule+0xf6/0x3f0
[  300.430068]  _free_event+0x531/0x14c0
[  300.430277]  perf_event_release_kernel+0x648/0x870
[  300.430680]  ? __pfx_perf_event_release_kernel+0x10/0x10
[  300.430969]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x21/0x30
[  300.431228]  ? __sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp2+0x1c/0x30
[  300.431519]  ? __pfx_perf_release+0x10/0x10
[  300.431746]  perf_release+0x3a/0x50
[  300.431940]  __fput+0x414/0xb60
[  300.432127]  ____fput+0x22/0x30
[  300.432303]  task_work_run+0x19c/0x2b0
[  300.432518]  ? __pfx_task_work_run+0x10/0x10
[  300.432752]  ? __sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp4+0x1a/0x20
[  300.433038]  ? switch_task_namespaces+0xc6/0x110
[  300.433295]  do_exit+0xb19/0x2a30
[  300.433484]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x89/0x110
[  300.433728]  ? __pfx_do_exit+0x10/0x10
[  300.433942]  do_group_exit+0xe4/0x2c0
[  300.434147]  get_signal+0x2279/0x24c0
[  300.434360]  ? __pfx_get_signal+0x10/0x10
[  300.434601]  ? __might_fault+0xf1/0x1b0
[  300.434824]  arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x8e/0x7d0
[  300.435083]  ? __pfx_arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x10/0x10
[  300.435375]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x21/0x30
[  300.435629]  ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x10f/0x200
[  300.435901]  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x144/0x200
[  300.436161]  do_syscall_64+0x79/0x140
[  300.436366]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
[  300.436643] RIP: 0033:0x7f5add83ee5d
[  300.436843] RSP: 002b:00007fff21a70e68 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000012a
[  300.437240] RAX: 0000000000000003 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f5add83ee5d
[  300.437610] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000020000080
[  300.437969] RBP: 00007fff21a70e70 R08: 000000000000000b R09: 00007fff21a70ea0
[  300.438329] R10: 00000000ffffffff R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 00007fff21a70fc8
[  300.438703] R13: 0000000000401b4f R14: 0000000000403e08 R15: 00007f5addc0e000
[  300.439075]  </TASK>
[  300.439197]
[  300.439197] Showing all locks held in the system:
[  300.439513] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/33:
[  300.439723]  #0: ffffffff8705ca40 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: debug_show_all_locks+0x73/0x3c0
[  300.440199]
[  300.440288] =============================================
[  300.440288]

Regards,
Yi Lai

> > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Oleg.
> 
> Sebastian