Re: [PATCH v14 09/12] unwind deferred: Use SRCU unwind_deferred_task_work()

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 08:49:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> 
> Instead of using the callback_mutex to protect the link list of callbacks
> in unwind_deferred_task_work(), use SRCU instead. This gets called every
> time a task exits that has to record a stack trace that was requested.
> This can happen for many tasks on several CPUs at the same time. A mutex
> is a bottleneck and can cause a bit of contention and slow down performance.
> 
> As the callbacks themselves are allowed to sleep, regular RCU cannot be
> used to protect the list. Instead use SRCU, as that still allows the
> callbacks to sleep and the list can be read without needing to hold the
> callback_mutex.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ca9bd83a-6c80-4ee0-a83c-224b9d60b755@efficios.com/
> 
> Also added a new guard (srcu_lite) written by Peter Zilstra
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250715102912.GQ1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> 
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Suggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
> Changes since v13: https://lore.kernel.org/20250708012359.172959778@kernel.org
> 
> - Have the locking of the link list walk use guard(srcu_lite)
>   (Peter Zijlstra)
> 
> - Fixed up due to the new atomic_long logic.
> 
>  include/linux/srcu.h     |  4 ++++
>  kernel/unwind/deferred.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> index 900b0d5c05f5..879054b8bf87 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> @@ -524,4 +524,8 @@ DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(srcu, struct srcu_struct,
>  		    srcu_read_unlock(_T->lock, _T->idx),
>  		    int idx)
>  
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(srcu_lite, struct srcu_struct,

You need srcu_fast because srcu_lite is being removed.  They are quite
similar, but srcu_fast is faster and is NMI-safe.  (This last might or
might not matter here.)

See https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250716225418.3014815-3-paulmck@kernel.org/
for a srcu_fast_notrace, so something like this:

DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(srcu_fast, struct srcu_struct,
		    _T->scp = srcu_read_lock_fast(_T->lock),
		    srcu_read_unlock_fast(_T->lock, _T->scp),
		    struct srcu_ctr __percpu *scp)

Other than that, it looks plausible.

							Thanx, Paul

> +		    _T->idx = srcu_read_lock_lite(_T->lock),
> +		    srcu_read_unlock_lite(_T->lock, _T->idx),
> +		    int idx)
>  #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/unwind/deferred.c b/kernel/unwind/deferred.c
> index 2311b725d691..353f7af610bf 100644
> --- a/kernel/unwind/deferred.c
> +++ b/kernel/unwind/deferred.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static inline bool try_assign_cnt(struct unwind_task_info *info, u32 cnt)
>  #define UNWIND_MAX_ENTRIES					\
>  	((SZ_4K - sizeof(struct unwind_cache)) / sizeof(long))
>  
> -/* Guards adding to and reading the list of callbacks */
> +/* Guards adding to or removing from the list of callbacks */
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(callback_mutex);
>  static LIST_HEAD(callbacks);
>  
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(callbacks);
>  
>  /* Zero'd bits are available for assigning callback users */
>  static unsigned long unwind_mask = RESERVED_BITS;
> +DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(unwind_srcu);
>  
>  static inline bool unwind_pending(struct unwind_task_info *info)
>  {
> @@ -174,8 +175,9 @@ static void unwind_deferred_task_work(struct callback_head *head)
>  
>  	cookie = info->id.id;
>  
> -	guard(mutex)(&callback_mutex);
> -	list_for_each_entry(work, &callbacks, list) {
> +	guard(srcu_lite)(&unwind_srcu);
> +	list_for_each_entry_srcu(work, &callbacks, list,
> +				 srcu_read_lock_held(&unwind_srcu)) {
>  		if (test_bit(work->bit, &bits)) {
>  			work->func(work, &trace, cookie);
>  			if (info->cache)
> @@ -213,7 +215,7 @@ int unwind_deferred_request(struct unwind_work *work, u64 *cookie)
>  {
>  	struct unwind_task_info *info = &current->unwind_info;
>  	unsigned long old, bits;
> -	unsigned long bit = BIT(work->bit);
> +	unsigned long bit;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	*cookie = 0;
> @@ -230,6 +232,14 @@ int unwind_deferred_request(struct unwind_work *work, u64 *cookie)
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!CAN_USE_IN_NMI && in_nmi()))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	/* Do not allow cancelled works to request again */
> +	bit = READ_ONCE(work->bit);
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bit < 0))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/* Only need the mask now */
> +	bit = BIT(bit);
> +
>  	guard(irqsave)();
>  
>  	*cookie = get_cookie(info);
> @@ -281,10 +291,15 @@ void unwind_deferred_cancel(struct unwind_work *work)
>  		return;
>  
>  	guard(mutex)(&callback_mutex);
> -	list_del(&work->list);
> +	list_del_rcu(&work->list);
> +
> +	/* Do not allow any more requests and prevent callbacks */
> +	work->bit = -1;
>  
>  	__clear_bit(bit, &unwind_mask);
>  
> +	synchronize_srcu(&unwind_srcu);
> +
>  	guard(rcu)();
>  	/* Clear this bit from all threads */
>  	for_each_process_thread(g, t) {
> @@ -307,7 +322,7 @@ int unwind_deferred_init(struct unwind_work *work, unwind_callback_t func)
>  	work->bit = ffz(unwind_mask);
>  	__set_bit(work->bit, &unwind_mask);
>  
> -	list_add(&work->list, &callbacks);
> +	list_add_rcu(&work->list, &callbacks);
>  	work->func = func;
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.47.2
> 
>