BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox