From: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
To: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
Cc: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 04:38:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260312113815.2107882-1-usama.arif@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cb89caf58885858433711f0ed6238484f5f1a67f.1773164180.git.d@ilvokhin.com>
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:49:39 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com> wrote:
> Add the contended_release trace event. This tracepoint fires on the
> holder side when a contended lock is released, complementing the
> existing contention_begin/contention_end tracepoints which fire on the
> waiter side.
>
> This enables correlating lock hold time under contention with waiter
> events by lock address.
>
> Add trace_contended_release() calls to the slowpath unlock paths of
> sleepable locks: mutex, rtmutex, semaphore, rwsem, percpu-rwsem, and
> RT-specific rwbase locks. Each call site fires only when there are
> blocked waiters being woken, except percpu_up_write() which always wakes
> via __wake_up().
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
> ---
> include/trace/events/lock.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 1 +
> kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 3 +++
> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 1 +
> kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c | 8 +++++++-
> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 9 +++++++--
> kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 4 +++-
> 7 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/lock.h b/include/trace/events/lock.h
> index 8e89baa3775f..4f28e41977ec 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/lock.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/lock.h
> @@ -138,6 +138,23 @@ TRACE_EVENT(contention_end,
> TP_printk("%p (ret=%d)", __entry->lock_addr, __entry->ret)
> );
>
> +TRACE_EVENT(contended_release,
> +
> + TP_PROTO(void *lock),
> +
> + TP_ARGS(lock),
> +
> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> + __field(void *, lock_addr)
> + ),
> +
> + TP_fast_assign(
> + __entry->lock_addr = lock;
> + ),
> +
> + TP_printk("%p", __entry->lock_addr)
> +);
> +
> #endif /* _TRACE_LOCK_H */
>
> /* This part must be outside protection */
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 427187ff02db..ff9d07f3e900 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -992,6 +992,7 @@ static noinline void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, unsigne
> if (waiter) {
> next = waiter->task;
>
> + trace_contended_release(lock);
> debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
> __clear_task_blocked_on(next, lock);
> wake_q_add(&wake_q, next);
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> index f3ee7a0d6047..1eee51766aaf 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> @@ -263,6 +263,8 @@ void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>
> + trace_contended_release(sem);
> +
Hello!
I saw that you mentioned in the commmit message that you do this for only
blocked waiters except for percpu_up_write(). We can use
waitqueue_active(&sem->waiters) to check for this over here so that
its consistent with every other call?
> /*
> * Signal the writer is done, no fast path yet.
> *
> @@ -297,6 +299,7 @@ void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> * writer.
> */
> smp_mb(); /* B matches C */
> + trace_contended_release(sem);
Should we do this after this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count)?
> /*
> * In other words, if they see our decrement (presumably to
> * aggregate zero, as that is the only time it matters) they
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> index ccaba6148b61..3db8a840b4e8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -1466,6 +1466,7 @@ static void __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> }
>
> + trace_contended_release(lock);
> /*
> * The wakeup next waiter path does not suffer from the above
> * race. See the comments there.
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
> index 82e078c0665a..081778934b13 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
> @@ -162,8 +162,10 @@ static void __sched __rwbase_read_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
> * worst case which can happen is a spurious wakeup.
> */
> owner = rt_mutex_owner(rtm);
> - if (owner)
> + if (owner) {
> + trace_contended_release(rwb);
> rt_mutex_wake_q_add_task(&wqh, owner, state);
> + }
>
> /* Pairs with the preempt_enable in rt_mutex_wake_up_q() */
> preempt_disable();
> @@ -205,6 +207,8 @@ static inline void rwbase_write_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> + if (trace_contended_release_enabled() && rt_mutex_has_waiters(rtm))
> + trace_contended_release(rwb);
> __rwbase_write_unlock(rwb, WRITER_BIAS, flags);
> }
>
> @@ -214,6 +218,8 @@ static inline void rwbase_write_downgrade(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> + if (trace_contended_release_enabled() && rt_mutex_has_waiters(rtm))
> + trace_contended_release(rwb);
> /* Release it and account current as reader */
> __rwbase_write_unlock(rwb, WRITER_BIAS - 1, flags);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index ba4cb74de064..cf7d8e75ad7b 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -1390,6 +1390,7 @@ static inline void __up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> if (unlikely((tmp & (RWSEM_LOCK_MASK|RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) ==
> RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) {
> clear_nonspinnable(sem);
> + trace_contended_release(sem);
> rwsem_wake(sem);
> }
> preempt_enable();
> @@ -1413,8 +1414,10 @@ static inline void __up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> preempt_disable();
> rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
> tmp = atomic_long_fetch_add_release(-RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED, &sem->count);
> - if (unlikely(tmp & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS))
> + if (unlikely(tmp & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) {
> + trace_contended_release(sem);
> rwsem_wake(sem);
> + }
> preempt_enable();
> }
>
> @@ -1437,8 +1440,10 @@ static inline void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> tmp = atomic_long_fetch_add_release(
> -RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED+RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
> - if (tmp & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)
> + if (tmp & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS) {
> + trace_contended_release(sem);
> rwsem_downgrade_wake(sem);
> + }
> preempt_enable();
> }
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> index 74d41433ba13..d46415095dd6 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> @@ -231,8 +231,10 @@ void __sched up(struct semaphore *sem)
> else
> __up(sem, &wake_q);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
> - if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q))
> + if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q)) {
> + trace_contended_release(sem);
> wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> + }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(up);
>
> --
> 2.52.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-12 11:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-10 17:49 [PATCH v2 0/2] locking: contended_release tracepoint instrumentation Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-10 17:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Extract __percpu_up_read() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-12 11:39 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-10 17:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-12 11:38 ` Usama Arif [this message]
2026-03-16 15:32 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
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=20260312113815.2107882-1-usama.arif@linux.dev \
--to=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=d@ilvokhin.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--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