All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lukasz Luba <l.luba@partner.samsung.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: corbet@lwn.net, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc: lockdep: add information about performance impact
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:49:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181010114929eucas1p26afb68895372532acd98a5fa641c6ab4~cPO77YHJM2672826728eucas1p2V@eucas1p2.samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a6bed3c-dac5-7031-eedd-2eb5bcc18478@arm.com>

Hi Robin,

On 10/10/2018 12:31 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 09/10/18 17:06, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 10/09/2018 05:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 05:39:27PM +0200, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>> This patch add some warning related to performance drop.
>>>> It should be mentioned that this is not for free
>>>> and the platfrom resources (cache, bus interconnect, etc.)
>>>> will be used more frequently.
>>>
>>> To me this reads a bit like: water is wet.
>>>
>>> Is this really needed?
>>>
>>>
>> Well, it would be good to know what is the performance drop
>> (10% or 20% or x3 times) when you are enabling different debug options.
>> I have spent some time analyzing these cache and bus strange behavior.
>> Now the developers would know that LOCKDEP might cause constant trashing
>> of your cache in some use cases.
> 
> Fair enough, but this is the wrong place for that. Anyone who's got as 
> far as reading how the internals of lockdep work can probably already 
> figure out that that brings a non-trivial overhead, whereas Joe 
> Developer wondering why his kernel is slow seems unlikely to happen 
> across this document by chance. And the people shipping devices with 
> PROVE_LOCKING enabled because it happened to mask some tricky bug, well, 
> they know what they did ;)
> 
> If you want to highlight to unwitting users that a tweaking a particular 
> config knob has a significant performance hit, at least put the warning 
> next to said knob, i.e. in the Kconfig help. For an example, DMA debug 
> comes to mind.
> 
> Robin.
> 
> 
Thank for the hint.
I agree, it would not be easy to find in this location.
I've found it during porting EAS where the
PROVE_LOCKING is used for arm and arm64
http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-power.git;a=blobdiff;f=arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig;h=e83c6e5bcfff97f8e9aacc4f2086ed506df63e59;hp=2721877d5a11f7fc41b8eb42d040ccde10eb0f3e;hb=737c15bf13632504e94509f0b9508122c664f3f2;hpb=288ae1d294d314b0aad5e0471605089da0336a77

I just wanted to give some rough performance impact measurements on
a real platform.

Regards,
Lukasz

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: l.luba@partner.samsung.com (Lukasz Luba)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: lockdep: add information about performance impact
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:49:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181010114929eucas1p26afb68895372532acd98a5fa641c6ab4~cPO77YHJM2672826728eucas1p2V@eucas1p2.samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a6bed3c-dac5-7031-eedd-2eb5bcc18478@arm.com>

Hi Robin,

On 10/10/2018 12:31 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 09/10/18 17:06, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 10/09/2018 05:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 05:39:27PM +0200, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>> This patch add some warning related to performance drop.
>>>> It should be mentioned that this is not for free
>>>> and the platfrom resources (cache, bus interconnect, etc.)
>>>> will be used more frequently.
>>>
>>> To me this reads a bit like: water is wet.
>>>
>>> Is this really needed?
>>>
>>>
>> Well, it would be good to know what is the performance drop
>> (10% or 20% or x3 times) when you are enabling different debug options.
>> I have spent some time analyzing these cache and bus strange behavior.
>> Now the developers would know that LOCKDEP might cause constant trashing
>> of your cache in some use cases.
> 
> Fair enough, but this is the wrong place for that. Anyone who's got as 
> far as reading how the internals of lockdep work can probably already 
> figure out that that brings a non-trivial overhead, whereas Joe 
> Developer wondering why his kernel is slow seems unlikely to happen 
> across this document by chance. And the people shipping devices with 
> PROVE_LOCKING enabled because it happened to mask some tricky bug, well, 
> they know what they did ;)
> 
> If you want to highlight to unwitting users that a tweaking a particular 
> config knob has a significant performance hit, at least put the warning 
> next to said knob, i.e. in the Kconfig help. For an example, DMA debug 
> comes to mind.
> 
> Robin.
> 
> 
Thank for the hint.
I agree, it would not be easy to find in this location.
I've found it during porting EAS where the
PROVE_LOCKING is used for arm and arm64
http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-power.git;a=blobdiff;f=arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig;h=e83c6e5bcfff97f8e9aacc4f2086ed506df63e59;hp=2721877d5a11f7fc41b8eb42d040ccde10eb0f3e;hb=737c15bf13632504e94509f0b9508122c664f3f2;hpb=288ae1d294d314b0aad5e0471605089da0336a77

I just wanted to give some rough performance impact measurements on
a real platform.

Regards,
Lukasz

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-10 11:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20181009153935eucas1p2dec146575ed5fefd4a0b2b6cb9bac056@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
2018-10-09 15:39 ` [PATCH] Doc: lockdep: add information about performance impact Lukasz Luba
2018-10-09 15:39   ` Lukasz Luba
2018-10-09 15:43   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-09 15:43     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-09 15:58     ` Will Deacon
2018-10-09 15:58       ` Will Deacon
2018-10-10 10:18       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-10-10 10:18         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-10-09 16:06     ` Lukasz Luba
2018-10-09 16:06       ` Lukasz Luba
2018-10-10 10:31       ` Robin Murphy
2018-10-10 10:31         ` Robin Murphy
2018-10-10 11:49         ` Lukasz Luba [this message]
2018-10-10 11:49           ` Lukasz Luba

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='20181010114929eucas1p26afb68895372532acd98a5fa641c6ab4~cPO77YHJM2672826728eucas1p2V@eucas1p2.samsung.com' \
    --to=l.luba@partner.samsung.com \
    --cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.