From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Dmitry Ilvokhin" <d@ilvokhin.com>
Cc: linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/paravirt: Trace contended_release on unlock
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 07:38:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260804073846.8A86D1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17fa67f9fa4cf93f1150725e89f5f916e41a9b6f.1785778551.git.d@ilvokhin.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Paravirt queued spinlocks unconditionally trace 'contended_release' when the tracepoint is enabled globally, ignoring the CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_TRACE_CONTENDED_RELEASE opt-out.
--
--- Patch [5]: [PATCH 5/5] x86/paravirt: Trace contended_release on unlock ---
commit 1a2ad2e72bd14437a21c720ae7476112bc7cb8d5
Author: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
x86/paravirt: Trace contended_release on unlock
This commit introduces traced variants of paravirt spinlock unlock functions
to trace the contended_release event. It dynamically swaps the static call
target to point to these traced versions when the tracepoint is enabled,
keeping the disabled path zero-cost.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> index ddc19dc28ba16..ca12b36553074 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
[ ... ]
> +int arch_contended_release_trace_reg(void)
> +{
> + void *cur = static_call_query(queued_spin_unlock);
> +
> + if (cur == __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock)
> + static_call_update(queued_spin_unlock,
> + __raw_callee_save_native_queued_spin_unlock_traced);
> + else if (cur == __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unlock)
> + static_call_update(queued_spin_unlock,
> + __raw_callee_save_pv_queued_spin_unlock_traced);
> + return 0;
> +}
[Severity: Medium]
Will arch_contended_release_trace_reg() unconditionally trace the paravirt
queued spinlocks when the tracepoint is enabled globally, even if the kernel
was built with CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_TRACE_CONTENDED_RELEASE=n?
It looks like this registration callback swaps the static calls to the traced
variants without checking if spinlock tracing was explicitly opted out in the
kernel configuration.
> +
> +void arch_contended_release_trace_unreg(void)
> +{
> + void *cur = static_call_query(queued_spin_unlock);
> +
> + if (cur == __raw_callee_save_native_queued_spin_unlock_traced)
> + static_call_update(queued_spin_unlock,
> + __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock);
> + else if (cur == __raw_callee_save_pv_queued_spin_unlock_traced)
> + static_call_update(queued_spin_unlock,
> + __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unlock);
> }
[Severity: Medium]
Similarly, does arch_contended_release_trace_unreg() also need to check the
CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_TRACE_CONTENDED_RELEASE configuration?
Without a config guard, this manipulates the static calls when the tracepoint
is disabled globally, even if spinlock tracing was intentionally excluded
during the build.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1785778551.git.d@ilvokhin.com?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-04 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 7:15 [PATCH 0/5] locking/qspinlock: Add contended_release tracepoint Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-08-04 7:15 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86/paravirt: Use static_call() for the paravirt spinlock ops Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-08-04 19:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2026-08-04 19:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-08-04 7:15 ` [PATCH 2/5] locking: Factor out queued_spin_release() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-08-04 7:15 ` [PATCH 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Add contended_release tracepoint Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-08-04 7:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 7:15 ` [PATCH 4/5] tracing/lock: Use TRACE_EVENT_FN() for contended_release Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-08-04 7:15 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86/paravirt: Trace contended_release on unlock Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-08-04 7:38 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-04 7:57 ` [PATCH 0/5] locking/qspinlock: Add contended_release tracepoint Juergen Gross
2026-08-04 10:39 ` 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=20260804073846.8A86D1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=d@ilvokhin.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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