Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@broadcom.com>,
	Alexey Makhalov <alexey.makhalov@broadcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, 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>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/7] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to qspinlock
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 12:34:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <agXBb0ga_6HJrrnm@shell.ilvokhin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260513193342.GB2545104@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 09:33:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 05:09:34PM +0000, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote:
> > Use the arch-overridable queued_spin_release(), introduced in the
> > previous commit, to ensure the tracepoint works correctly across all
> > architectures, including those with custom unlock implementations (e.g.
> > x86 paravirt).
> > 
> > When the tracepoint is disabled, the only addition to the hot path is a
> > single NOP instruction (the static branch). When enabled, the contention
> > check, trace call, and unlock are combined in an out-of-line function to
> > minimize hot path impact, avoiding the compiler needing to preserve the
> > lock pointer in a callee-saved register across the trace call.
> > 
> > Binary size impact (x86_64, defconfig):
> >   uninlined unlock (common case): +680 bytes  (+0.00%)
> >   inlined unlock (worst case):    +83659 bytes (+0.21%)
> > 
> > The inlined unlock case could not be achieved through Kconfig options on
> > x86_64 as PREEMPT_BUILD unconditionally selects UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK on
> > x86_64. The UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK guards were manually inverted to force
> > inline the unlock path and estimate the worst case binary size increase.
> > 
> > In practice, configurations with UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK=n have already
> > opted against binary size optimization, so the inlined worst case is
> > unlikely to be a concern.
> 
> This is not quite accurate. You add the (5byte) NOP for the static
> branch, but then you also add another 5 bytes for the CALL and at least
> another 2 bytes (possibly 5) for a JMP back into the previous stream.
> That is 12-15 bytes added to what was a single MOV instruction.
> 
> That is quite ludicrous.

Thanks for the feedback, Peter. This is exactly the kind of feedback I
was looking for.

I understand your concerns and initially I had exactly the same
thoughts, and after I looked into the generated code more carefully the
impact on the executed path is smaller than the total size increase
suggests.

Generated code of _raw_spin_unlock() for baseline (before the patch) is
31 bytes in total (x86_64, defconfig, GCC 11).

    3e0:  endbr64                          ; 4 bytes
    3e4:  movb $0x0,(%rdi)                 ; 3 bytes (unlock)
    3e7:  decl %gs:__preempt_count         ; 7 bytes
    3ee:  je   3f5                         ; 2 bytes
    3f0:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes
    3f5:  call __SCT__preempt_schedule     ; 5 bytes
    3fa:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes

Generated code of _raw_spin_unlock() with tracepoint (after the patch
applied) is 40 bytes in total.

    bc0:  endbr64                          ; 4 bytes
    bc4:  xchg %ax,%ax                     ; 2 bytes (NOP, static branch)
    bc6:  movb $0x0,(%rdi)                 ; 3 bytes (unlock)
    bc9:  decl %gs:__preempt_count         ; 7 bytes
    bd0:  je   bde                         ; 2 bytes
    bd2:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes
    bd7:  call queued_spin_release_traced  ; 5 bytes
    bdc:  jmp  bc9                         ; 2 bytes
    bde:  call __SCT__preempt_schedule     ; 5 bytes
    be3:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes

It is 40 bytes (+9 bytes compared to baseline, 2 bytes for NOP and 7
bytes for CALL and JMP).

But if we look at the executed path the picture is a bit different.

Baseline, in best case scenario of least number of executed
instructions.

    3e0:  endbr64                          ; 4 bytes (always executed)
    3e4:  movb $0x0,(%rdi)                 ; 3 bytes (unlock,
                                           ; always executed)
    3e7:  decl %gs:__preempt_count         ; 7 bytes (always executed)
    3ee:  je   3f5                         ; 2 bytes (always executed)
    3f0:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes (executed if above
                                           ; je is not taken)
                                           ; rest is not executed
    3f5:  call __SCT__preempt_schedule     ; 5 bytes
    3fa:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes

Tracepoint (again same case of least number of executed instructions).

    bc0:  endbr64                          ; 4 bytes (always executed)
    bc4:  xchg %ax,%ax                     ; 2 bytes (always executed, this is an
                                           ; only addition on the execution path).
    bc6:  movb $0x0,(%rdi)                 ; 3 bytes (unlock, always executed)
    bc9:  decl %gs:__preempt_count         ; 7 bytes (always executed)
    bd0:  je   bde                         ; 2 bytes (always executed)
    bd2:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes (executed if above
                                           ; je is not taken)
                                           ; rest is not executed
    bd7:  call queued_spin_release_traced  ; 5 bytes
    bdc:  jmp  bc9                         ; 2 bytes
    bde:  call __SCT__preempt_schedule     ; 5 bytes
    be3:  jmp  __x86_return_thunk          ; 5 bytes

On the execution path we are getting 21 byte worth of instructions on
baseline against 23 bytes. The only addition on any executed path is the
2-byte NOP, that has a special treatment in CPU, cheap, but not entirely
free.

From a total size perspective it's 9 bytes, but on the executed path it's
a single 2-byte NOP.

Does this change the picture for you, or is the NOP still a concern for
this path?

> 
> I disagree that UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK=n opts against binary size. For x86
> the unlock is smaller than a function call.
> 

Fair point on the UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK characterization, but
UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCKis always "y" on x86_64. The inlined case only
applies to s390 (unconditionally), csky and loongarch (when
!PREEMPTION). I'll remove this, thanks.

> 
> I really don't see how this is worth it.


  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-14 12:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-05 17:09 [PATCH v6 0/7] locking: contended_release tracepoint instrumentation Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 1/7] tracing/lock: Remove unnecessary linux/sched.h include Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 2/7] locking/percpu-rwsem: Extract __percpu_up_read() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 3/7] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to sleepable locks Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 4/7] locking: Factor out queued_spin_release() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-13 15:37   ` Steven Rostedt
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 5/7] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to qspinlock Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-13 15:41   ` Steven Rostedt
2026-05-14 14:13     ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-14 16:03       ` Steven Rostedt
2026-05-13 19:33   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-14 12:34     ` Dmitry Ilvokhin [this message]
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 6/7] locking: Factor out __queued_read_unlock()/__queued_write_unlock() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-13 15:41   ` Steven Rostedt
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [PATCH v6 7/7] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to qrwlock Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-05-13 15:43   ` Steven Rostedt
2026-05-13 19:26 ` [PATCH v6 0/7] locking: contended_release tracepoint instrumentation 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=agXBb0ga_6HJrrnm@shell.ilvokhin.com \
    --to=d@ilvokhin.com \
    --cc=ajay.kaher@broadcom.com \
    --cc=alexey.makhalov@broadcom.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
    --cc=boqun@kernel.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dennis@kernel.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@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=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@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