public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf/core: fix restoring of Intel LBR call stack on a context switch
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 13:55:41 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aa8db567-d090-52cd-516b-e6c0002e5b23@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191015091617.GF2311@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>


On 15.10.2019 12:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 09:08:34AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>
>> Restore Intel LBR call stack from cloned inactive task perf context on
>> a context switch. This change inherently addresses inconsistency in LBR 
>> call stack data provided on a sample in record profiling mode for 
>> example like this:
>>
>>   $ perf record -N -B -T -R --call-graph lbr \
>>          -e cpu/period=0xcdfe60,event=0x3c,name=\'CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.THREAD\'/Duk \
>>          --clockid=monotonic_raw -- ./miniFE.x nx 25 ny 25 nz 25
>>
>> Let's assume threads A, B, C belonging to the same process. 
>> B and C are siblings of A and their perf contexts are treated as equivalent.
>> At some point B blocks on a futex (non preempt context switch).
>> B's LBRs are preserved at B's perf context task_ctx_data and B's events 
>> are removed from PMU and disabled. B's perf context becomes inactive.
>>
>> Later C gets on a cpu, runs, gets profiled and eventually switches to 
>> the awaken but not yet running B. The optimized context switch path is 
>> executed coping B's task_ctx_data to C's one and updating B's perf context 
>> pointer to refer to C's task_ctx_data that contains preserved B's LBRs 
>> after coping.
>>
>> However, as far B's perf context is inactive there is no enabled events
>> in there and B's task_ctx_data->lbr_callstack_users is equal to 0.
>> When B gets on the cpu B's events reviving is skipped following
>> the optimized context switch path and B's task_ctx_data->lbr_callstack_users
>> remains 0. Thus B's LBR's are not restored by pmu sched_task() code called 
>> in the end of perf context switch sched_in callback for B.
>>
>> In the report that manifests as having short fragments of B's
>> call stack, still tracked by LBR's HW between adjacent samples,
>> but the whole thread call tree doesn't aggregate.
>>
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/events/core.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>> index 2aad959e6def..74c2ff38e079 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>> @@ -3181,7 +3181,7 @@ static void perf_event_context_sched_out(struct task_struct *task, int ctxn,
>>  
>>  	rcu_read_lock();
>>  	next_ctx = next->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn];
>> -	if (!next_ctx)
>> +	if (!next_ctx || !next_ctx->is_active)
>>  		goto unlock;
> 
> AFAICT this completely kills off the optimization. next_ctx->is_active
> cannot be set at this point.

Hmm, the intention was to skip optimization path only once when switching 
to just resumed thread. Thanks for observation.

~Alexey

      reply	other threads:[~2019-10-15 10:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-14  6:08 [PATCH v1] perf/core: fix restoring of Intel LBR call stack on a context switch Alexey Budankov
2019-10-15  9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-15 10:55   ` Alexey Budankov [this message]

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=aa8db567-d090-52cd-516b-e6c0002e5b23@linux.intel.com \
    --to=alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    /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