[PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()

[PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()

[Anders Roxell]

When running in qemu on an kernel built with allmodconfig and debug
options (in particular kcov and ubsan) enabled, ftrace_replace_code
function call take minutes. The ftrace selftest calls
ftrace_replace_code to look >40000 through
ftrace_make_call/ftrace_make_nop, and these end up calling
__aarch64_insn_write/aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync.

Microseconds add up because this is called in a loop for each dyn_ftrace
record, and this triggers the softlockup watchdog unless we let it sleep
occasionally.

Rework so that we call cond_resched() if !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count().

Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
---
 kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
index c375e33239f7..7080eb464983 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
@@ -2419,11 +2419,19 @@ void __weak ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
 {
 	struct dyn_ftrace *rec;
 	struct ftrace_page *pg;
+	bool schedulable;
 	int failed;
 
 	if (unlikely(ftrace_disabled))
 		return;
 
+	/*
+	 * Some archs calls this function with interrupts or preemption
+	 * disabled. However, for other archs that can preempt, this can cause
+	 * an tremendous unneeded latency.
+	 */
+	schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();
+
 	do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) {
 
 		if (rec->flags & FTRACE_FL_DISABLED)
@@ -2435,6 +2443,8 @@ void __weak ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
 			/* Stop processing */
 			return;
 		}
+		if (schedulable)
+			cond_resched();
 	} while_for_each_ftrace_rec();
 }
 
-- 
2.19.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()

[Will Deacon]

Hi Anders, Steve,

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:29:03PM +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> When running in qemu on an kernel built with allmodconfig and debug
> options (in particular kcov and ubsan) enabled, ftrace_replace_code
> function call take minutes. The ftrace selftest calls
> ftrace_replace_code to look >40000 through
> ftrace_make_call/ftrace_make_nop, and these end up calling
> __aarch64_insn_write/aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync.
> 
> Microseconds add up because this is called in a loop for each dyn_ftrace
> record, and this triggers the softlockup watchdog unless we let it sleep
> occasionally.
> 
> Rework so that we call cond_resched() if !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count().
> 
> Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index c375e33239f7..7080eb464983 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -2419,11 +2419,19 @@ void __weak ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
>  {
>  	struct dyn_ftrace *rec;
>  	struct ftrace_page *pg;
> +	bool schedulable;
>  	int failed;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(ftrace_disabled))
>  		return;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Some archs calls this function with interrupts or preemption
> +	 * disabled. However, for other archs that can preempt, this can cause
> +	 * an tremendous unneeded latency.
> +	 */
> +	schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();

Is there a reason not to use preemptible() here?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()

[Anders Roxell]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 10:54, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Anders, Steve,
>
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:29:03PM +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> > When running in qemu on an kernel built with allmodconfig and debug
> > options (in particular kcov and ubsan) enabled, ftrace_replace_code
> > function call take minutes. The ftrace selftest calls
> > ftrace_replace_code to look >40000 through
> > ftrace_make_call/ftrace_make_nop, and these end up calling
> > __aarch64_insn_write/aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync.
> >
> > Microseconds add up because this is called in a loop for each dyn_ftrace
> > record, and this triggers the softlockup watchdog unless we let it sleep
> > occasionally.
> >
> > Rework so that we call cond_resched() if !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count().
> >
> > Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index c375e33239f7..7080eb464983 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > @@ -2419,11 +2419,19 @@ void __weak ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
> >  {
> >       struct dyn_ftrace *rec;
> >       struct ftrace_page *pg;
> > +     bool schedulable;
> >       int failed;
> >
> >       if (unlikely(ftrace_disabled))
> >               return;
> >
> > +     /*
> > +      * Some archs calls this function with interrupts or preemption
> > +      * disabled. However, for other archs that can preempt, this can cause
> > +      * an tremendous unneeded latency.
> > +      */
> > +     schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();
>
> Is there a reason not to use preemptible() here?

As I understand it preemptible() is defined to 0 if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled.
Thats no good right ?

Cheers,
Anders

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:43:12 +0100
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> wrote:

> > > +     schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();  
> >
> > Is there a reason not to use preemptible() here?  
> 
> As I understand it preemptible() is defined to 0 if
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled.
> Thats no good right ?

No it's not, which means this isn't a good approach. I have a much
better idea on how to solve this. I'll post a small patch set in a bit.

-- Steve

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel