From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/22 -v7] Add basic support for gcc profiler instrumentation
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:25:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1201703101.28547.224.camel@lappy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0801300856330.29020@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 09:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Peter and I are having a discussion on craziness of archs and memory
> barriers. You seem to understand crazy archs pretty well, and we would
> like some advice. :-)
>
> See below:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:15 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > > +int register_mcount_function(struct mcount_ops *ops)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mcount_func_lock, flags);
> > > > + ops->next = mcount_list;
> > > > + /* must have next seen before we update the list pointer */
> > > > + smp_wmb();
> > >
> > > That comment does not explain which race it closes; this is esp
> > > important as there is no paired barrier to give hints.
> >
> > OK, fair enough. I'll explain it a bit more.
> >
> > How's this:
> >
> > /*
> > * We are entering ops into the mcount_list but another
> > * CPU might be walking that list. We need to make sure
> > * the ops->next pointer is valid before another CPU sees
> > * the ops pointer included into the mcount_list.
> > */
> >
>
> The above is my new comment. But Peter says that it's still not good
> enough and that all write memory barriers need read barriers.
To clarify, either: full mb, rmb or read depend.
> Let me explain the situation here.
>
> We have a single link list called mcount_list that is walked when more
> than one function is registered by mcount. Mcount is called at the start
> of all C functions that are not annotated with "notrace". When more than
> one function is registered, mcount calls a loop function that does the
> following:
>
> notrace void mcount_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip)
> {
> struct mcount_ops *op = mcount_list;
When thinking RCU, this would be rcu_dereference and imply a read
barrier.
> while (op != &mcount_list_end) {
> op->func(ip, parent_ip);
> op = op->next;
Same here; the rcu_dereference() would do the read depend barrier.
> };
> }
>
> A registered function must already have a "func" filled, and the mcount
> register code takes care of "next". It is documented that the calling
> function should "never" change next and always expect that the func can be
> called after it is unregistered. That's not the issue here.
>
> The issue is how to insert the ops into the list. I've done the following,
> as you can see in the code this text is inserted between.
>
> ops->next = mcount_list;
> smp_wmb();
> mcount_list = ops;
>
> The read side pair is the reading of ops to ops->next, which should imply
> a smp_rmb() just by the logic. But Peter tells me things like alpha is
> crazy enough to do better than that! Thus, I'm asking you.
>
> Can some arch have a reader where it receives ops->next before it received
> ops? This seems to me to be a phsyic arch, to know where ops->next is
> before it knows ops!
>
> Remember, that the ops that is being registered, is not viewable by any
> other CPU until mcount_list = ops. I don't see the need for a read barrier
> in this case. But I could very well be wrong.
>
> Help!
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > + mcount_list = ops;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * For one func, simply call it directly.
> > > > + * For more than one func, call the chain.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (ops->next == &mcount_list_end)
> > > > + mcount_trace_function = ops->func;
> > > > + else
> > > > + mcount_trace_function = mcount_list_func;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mcount_func_lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-30 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-30 3:15 [PATCH 00/22 -v7] mcount and latency tracing utility -v7 Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 01/22 -v7] printk - dont wakeup klogd with interrupts disabled Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 02/22 -v7] Add basic support for gcc profiler instrumentation Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-30 13:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 14:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 14:25 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2008-02-01 22:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-02 1:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-02-02 21:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-04 17:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-02-04 21:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-04 22:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-02-04 22:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-02-05 6:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-05 5:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-01-30 13:21 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-01-30 13:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 14:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 03/22 -v7] Annotate core code that should not be traced Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 04/22 -v7] x86_64: notrace annotations Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 05/22 -v7] add notrace annotations to vsyscall Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-30 13:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 06/22 -v7] handle accurate time keeping over long delays Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 07/22 -v7] initialize the clock source to jiffies clock Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 08/22 -v7] add get_monotonic_cycles Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 09/22 -v7] add notrace annotations to timing events Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 10/22 -v7] mcount based trace in the form of a header file library Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 11/22 -v7] Add context switch marker to sched.c Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 12/22 -v7] Make the task State char-string visible to all Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 13/22 -v7] Add tracing of context switches Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 14/22 -v7] Generic command line storage Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 15/22 -v7] trace generic call to schedule switch Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 16/22 -v7] Add marker in try_to_wake_up Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 17/22 -v7] mcount tracer for wakeup latency timings Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-30 13:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 18/22 -v7] Trace irq disabled critical timings Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 19/22 -v7] trace preempt off " Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 9:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-30 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 20/22 -v7] Add markers to various events Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 21/22 -v7] Add event tracer Steven Rostedt
2008-01-30 3:15 ` [PATCH 22/22 -v7] Critical latency timings histogram Steven Rostedt
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=1201703101.28547.224.camel@lappy \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=srostedt@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.bird@am.sony.com \
--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