public inbox for linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux trace kernel <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] tracing: Guard __DECLARE_TRACE() use of __DO_TRACE_CALL() with SRCU-fast
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:02:02 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260109160202.22975aa4@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3c0df437-f6e5-47c6-aed5-f4cc26fe627a@efficios.com>

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:21:19 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:

> * preempt disable/enable pair:                                     1.1 ns
> * srcu-fast lock/unlock:                                           1.5 ns
> 
> CONFIG_RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST=y
> * migrate disable/enable pair:                                     3.0 ns
> * calls to migrate disable/enable pair within noinline functions: 17.0 ns
> 
> CONFIG_RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST=m
> * migrate disable/enable pair:                                    22.0 ns

OUCH! So migrate disable/enable has a much larger overhead when executed in
a module than in the kernel? This means all spin_locks() in modules
converted to mutexes in PREEMPT_RT are taking this hit!

It looks like it has to allow access to the rq->nr_pinned. There's a hack to
expose this part of the rq struct for in-kernel by the following:

kernel/sched/rq-offsets.c:      DEFINE(RQ_nr_pinned, offsetof(struct rq, nr_pinned));

Then for the in-kernel code we have:

#define this_rq_raw() arch_raw_cpu_ptr(&runqueues)
#else
#define this_rq_raw() PERCPU_PTR(&runqueues)
#endif
#define this_rq_pinned() (*(unsigned int *)((void *)this_rq_raw() + RQ_nr_pinned))

Looking at the scheduler code, the rq->nr_pinned is referenced by a static
function with:

static inline bool rq_has_pinned_tasks(struct rq *rq)
{
	return rq->nr_pinned;
}

Which is only referenced in hotplug code and a balance_push() path in load
balancing. Does this variable really need to be in the runqueue struct?

Why not just make it a per-cpu variable. Maybe call it cpu_nr_pinned_tasks,
and export that for all to use?

It will not only fix the discrepancy between the overhead of
migrate_disable/enable in modules vs in-kernel. But it also removes the
hack to expose a portion of the runqueue.

-- Steve

  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-09 21:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-09  3:05 [PATCH v5] tracing: Guard __DECLARE_TRACE() use of __DO_TRACE_CALL() with SRCU-fast Steven Rostedt
2026-01-09 14:40 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-01-09 17:21   ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-09 18:58     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-01-13 13:56       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-09 19:10   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-09 19:19     ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-09 20:21       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-01-09 21:02         ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2026-01-12  7:23           ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-12 15:31           ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-12 15:36             ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-12 15:44               ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-09 21:54         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-09 22:00           ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-09 22:18             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-09 22:31               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-01-09 22:33               ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-09 22:39                 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-10  0:35                   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-10 16:14                     ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-11 20:04                       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-11 22:09                         ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-11 23:38                           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-12 13:53                             ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-12 17:19                               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-13 14:23                                 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-13 23:44                                   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-09 19:19     ` Yonghong Song

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=20260109160202.22975aa4@gandalf.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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