BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, Xi Wang <xii@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH] perf lock contention: Fix spinlock and rwlock accounting
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 22:29:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240828052953.1445862-1-namhyung@kernel.org> (raw)

The spinlock and rwlock use a single-element per-cpu array to track
current locks due to performance reason.  But this means the key is
always available and it cannot simply account lock stats in the array
because some of them are invalid.

In fact, the contention_end() program in the BPF invalidates the entry
by setting the 'lock' value to 0 instead of deleting the entry for the
hashmap.  So it should skip entries with the lock value of 0 in the
account_end_timestamp().

Otherwise, it'd have spurious high contention on an idle machine:

  $ sudo perf lock con -ab -Y spinlock sleep 3
   contended   total wait     max wait     avg wait         type   caller

           8      4.72 s       1.84 s     590.46 ms     spinlock   rcu_core+0xc7
           8      1.87 s       1.87 s     233.48 ms     spinlock   process_one_work+0x1b5
           2      1.87 s       1.87 s     933.92 ms     spinlock   worker_thread+0x1a2
           3      1.81 s       1.81 s     603.93 ms     spinlock   tmigr_update_events+0x13c
           2      1.72 s       1.72 s     861.98 ms     spinlock   tick_do_update_jiffies64+0x25
           6     42.48 us     13.02 us      7.08 us     spinlock   futex_q_lock+0x2a
           1     13.03 us     13.03 us     13.03 us     spinlock   futex_wake+0xce
           1     11.61 us     11.61 us     11.61 us     spinlock   rcu_core+0xc7

I don't believe it has contention on a spinlock longer than 1 second.
After this change, it only reports some small contentions.

  $ sudo perf lock con -ab -Y spinlock sleep 3
   contended   total wait     max wait     avg wait         type   caller

           4    133.51 us     43.29 us     33.38 us     spinlock   tick_do_update_jiffies64+0x25
           4     69.06 us     31.82 us     17.27 us     spinlock   process_one_work+0x1b5
           2     50.66 us     25.77 us     25.33 us     spinlock   rcu_core+0xc7
           1     28.45 us     28.45 us     28.45 us     spinlock   rcu_core+0xc7
           1     24.77 us     24.77 us     24.77 us     spinlock   tmigr_update_events+0x13c
           1     23.34 us     23.34 us     23.34 us     spinlock   raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x15

Fixes: b5711042a1c8 ("perf lock contention: Use per-cpu array map for spinlocks")
Reported-by: Xi Wang <xii@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
---
 tools/perf/util/bpf_lock_contention.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_lock_contention.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_lock_contention.c
index 4ee54538aba2..a3d40940fb23 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_lock_contention.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_lock_contention.c
@@ -296,6 +296,9 @@ static void account_end_timestamp(struct lock_contention *con)
 			goto next;
 
 		for (int i = 0; i < total_cpus; i++) {
+			if (cpu_data[i].lock == 0)
+				continue;
+
 			update_lock_stat(stat_fd, -1, end_ts, aggr_mode,
 					 &cpu_data[i]);
 		}
-- 
2.46.0.295.g3b9ea8a38a-goog


             reply	other threads:[~2024-08-28  5:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-28  5:29 Namhyung Kim [this message]
2024-08-30 13:23 ` [PATCH] perf lock contention: Fix spinlock and rwlock accounting Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
     [not found]   ` <CAM9d7ch27q8JycAvOqKzeG+0eXFbJ_o6qZoVSS6aUrWTpU=vdQ@mail.gmail.com>
2024-08-30 20:47     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo

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=20240828052953.1445862-1-namhyung@kernel.org \
    --to=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=xii@google.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox