From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ilvokhin.com (mail.ilvokhin.com [178.62.254.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BB7F191F94; Fri, 1 May 2026 13:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777642377; cv=none; b=fPVehykvpQ0rOL+U6il1S+IU7UbRzRfHmgyKXXTTBUU8ZnkxPXP82PmEWPiu51X5khr9gWoloQ3Cz2f3uBw2FTBCcxsB2LfHGnhXby7G1O3/nMFIdc1KYpo0DJ5ggp60064TfJEW1T6IMP67MM7O4vunnX2D3i3bFvo/aTEQP9Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777642377; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AqyZXLeYzsJx+rZc7e1F5Sgu3BjZdoUpHMsJoKlvEcI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZXfQFYjsBE7XZPVDCKILODpVPcgk1lOByqcXuqQat0yVnxS2zJ6GONer+jnmDFVChcMedml91e++Z7exXwGts5OXar5VaDa5MVIS3cbepNFkKr8pMaWlOGKGGGHHL0+k57HiTenX+oVgEY4o0yUKYdNfvFKGHXPtBPkWwcSQbAo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b=jTKGB8Ia; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b="jTKGB8Ia" Received: from shell.ilvokhin.com (shell.ilvokhin.com [138.68.190.75]) (Authenticated sender: d@ilvokhin.com) by mail.ilvokhin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABB84C7B79; Fri, 01 May 2026 13:32:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ilvokhin.com; s=mail; t=1777642368; bh=IszU0JG/WWa2O3f5MsRNZrb+ulmlJxnxUGQwsmnwYmU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=jTKGB8Ia7D3+Zec5q4aruW2aznDUx+x2QbIxrQuVAh+HqJGpjaqhURhOBdhrZQbag IWI5DhN3gDaOvxMrnc27MCpjJCByfrwPcadWoUrn575D9wcu8ZvKMjWZVZYlBfomtK 3l6KDosr8VPVi27Gi5jVQsMZxMlTisX765e0Z9hk= Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 13:32:44 +0000 From: Dmitry Ilvokhin To: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Waiman Long , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Juergen Gross , Ajay Kaher , Alexey Makhalov , Broadcom internal kernel review list , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Arnd Bergmann , Dennis Zhou , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: 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" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] locking: contended_release tracepoint instrumentation Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: I plan to rebase this series on top of Linus' tree to pick up Vineeth's patch [1], and send an updated version next week. In the meantime, I would appreciate feedback, especially on: - tracepoint semantics across different lock types - overhead concerns in hot paths (e.g. qspinlock) As a follow-up, I am also working on an RFC to extend perf lock contention to make use of the contended_release tracepoint, so feedback in that context would also be helpful. Feedback from locking and tracing maintainers would be particularly appreciated before respinning. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260323160052.17528-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org/