From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, fweisbec <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
baohong liu <baohong.liu@intel.com>,
vedang patel <vedang.patel@intel.com>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 3/4] irqflags: Avoid unnecessary calls to trace_ if you can
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:26:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180424182623.GA1357@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180424182302.GA404@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:23:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:26:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:01:34AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:22:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
> > > >> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > I'm inclined to explicitly declare the tracepoints with their given
> > > >> > synchronization method. Tracepoint probe callback functions for currently
> > > >> > existing tracepoints expect to have preemption disabled when invoked.
> > > >> > This assumption will not be true anymore for srcu-tracepoints.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, why not have a flag attached to the tracepoint_func that
> > > >> states if it expects preemption to be enabled or not? If a
> > > >> trace_##event##_srcu() is called, then simply disable preemption before
> > > >> calling the callbacks for it. That way if a callback is fine for use
> > > >> with srcu, then it would require calling
> > > >>
> > > >> register_trace_##event##_may_sleep();
> > > >>
> > > >> Then if someone uses this on a tracepoint where preemption is disabled,
> > > >> we simply do not call it.
> > > >
> > > > One more stupid question... If we are having to trace so much stuff
> > > > in the idle loop, are we perhaps grossly overstating the extent of that
> > > > "idle" loop? For being called "idle", this code seems quite busy!
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > > The performance hit I am observing is when running a heavy workload,
> > > like hackbench or something like that. That's what I am trying to
> > > correct.
> > > By the way is there any limitation on using SRCU too early during
> > > boot? I backported Mathieu's srcu tracepoint patches but the kernel
> > > hangs pretty early in the boot. I register lockdep probes in
> > > start_kernel. I am hoping that's not why.
> > >
> > > I could also have just screwed up the backporting... may be for my
> > > testing, I will just replace the rcu API with the srcu instead of all
> > > of Mathieu's new TRACE_EVENT macros for SRCU, since all I am trying to
> > > do right now is measure the performance of my patches with SRCU.
> >
> > Gah, yes, there is an entry on my capacious todo list on making SRCU
> > grace periods work during early boot and mid-boot. Let me see what
> > I can do...
>
> OK, just need to verify that you are OK with call_srcu()'s callbacks
> not being invoked until sometime during core_initcall() time. (If you
> really do need them to be invoked before that, in theory it is possible,
> but in practice it is weird, even for RCU.)
Oh, and that early at boot, you will need to use DEFINE_SRCU() or
DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() rather than dynamic allocation and initialization.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-24 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-17 4:07 [RFC v4 0/4] Centralize and unify usage of preempt/irq tracepoints Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17 4:07 ` [RFC v4 1/4] tracepoint: Add API to not do lockdep checks during RCU ops Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17 4:07 ` [RFC v4 2/4] softirq: reorder trace_softirqs_on to prevent lockdep splat Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17 4:07 ` [RFC v4 3/4] irqflags: Avoid unnecessary calls to trace_ if you can Joel Fernandes
2018-04-18 9:02 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-04-19 5:43 ` Namhyung Kim
2018-04-20 7:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-23 1:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-23 3:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-23 14:31 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-23 14:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-23 14:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-23 15:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-23 16:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-23 17:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-23 17:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-23 21:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-24 15:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 16:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 17:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 18:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 18:26 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-04-24 18:59 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 19:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 19:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 19:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 23:21 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-24 23:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-25 0:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-25 4:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-25 21:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-25 21:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-25 21:40 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-25 22:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-26 15:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-26 16:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-25 23:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-26 15:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-26 15:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-26 15:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-23 15:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-26 2:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-01 1:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17 4:07 ` [RFC v4 4/4] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage Joel Fernandes
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=20180424182623.GA1357@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=baohong.liu@intel.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vedang.patel@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).