[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/5] enhance lock debugging

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/5] enhance lock debugging

[Juergen Gross]

While hunting a locking problem in my core scheduling series I have
added some debugging aids to spinlock handling making it easier to
find the root cause for the problem.

Making use of the already existing lock profiling and enhancing it a
little bit produces some really valuable diagnostic data e.g. when a
NMI watchdog is triggering a crash.

Changes in V3:
- rebase to current staging (after realizing that patch 4 still
  applied, but resulting in patching a wrong function)

Changes in V2:
- multiple comments addressed
- added patch 5

Juergen Gross (5):
  xen/spinlocks: in debug builds store cpu holding the lock
  xen: add new CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS option
  xen: print lock profile info in panic()
  xen: modify lock profiling interface
  xen: modify several static locks to unique names

 tools/libxc/xc_misc.c       |   1 +
 tools/misc/xenlockprof.c    |  17 ++---
 xen/Kconfig.debug           |  10 ++-
 xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S      |  13 ++--
 xen/arch/x86/domain.c       |   2 +-
 xen/arch/x86/irq.c          |   6 +-
 xen/arch/x86/time.c         |   6 +-
 xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S      |  13 ++--
 xen/common/domain.c         |   4 +-
 xen/common/keyhandler.c     |   8 +--
 xen/common/perfc.c          |   6 +-
 xen/common/spinlock.c       | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 xen/common/sysctl.c         |   2 +-
 xen/common/trace.c          |   6 +-
 xen/drivers/char/console.c  |  10 +--
 xen/include/public/sysctl.h |  11 ++-
 xen/include/xen/spinlock.h  |  60 ++++++++++-------
 17 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 130 deletions(-)

-- 
2.16.4


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/5] xen/spinlocks: in debug builds store cpu holding the lock

[Juergen Gross]

Add the cpu currently holding the lock to struct lock_debug. This makes
analysis of locking errors easier and it can be tested whether the
correct cpu is releasing a lock again.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
V2: adjust types (Jan Beulich)
---
 xen/common/spinlock.c      | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 xen/include/xen/spinlock.h | 17 ++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/common/spinlock.c b/xen/common/spinlock.c
index 6bc52d70c0..1be1b5ebe6 100644
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@
 
 static atomic_t spin_debug __read_mostly = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
 
-static void check_lock(struct lock_debug *debug)
+static void check_lock(union lock_debug *debug)
 {
-    int irq_safe = !local_irq_is_enabled();
+    bool irq_safe = !local_irq_is_enabled();
 
     if ( unlikely(atomic_read(&spin_debug) <= 0) )
         return;
@@ -43,18 +43,21 @@ static void check_lock(struct lock_debug *debug)
      */
     if ( unlikely(debug->irq_safe != irq_safe) )
     {
-        int seen = cmpxchg(&debug->irq_safe, -1, irq_safe);
+        union lock_debug seen, new = { 0 };
 
-        if ( seen == !irq_safe )
+        new.irq_safe = irq_safe;
+        seen.val = cmpxchg(&debug->val, LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL, new.val);
+
+        if ( !seen.unseen && seen.irq_safe == !irq_safe )
         {
             printk("CHECKLOCK FAILURE: prev irqsafe: %d, curr irqsafe %d\n",
-                   seen, irq_safe);
+                   seen.irq_safe, irq_safe);
             BUG();
         }
     }
 }
 
-static void check_barrier(struct lock_debug *debug)
+static void check_barrier(union lock_debug *debug)
 {
     if ( unlikely(atomic_read(&spin_debug) <= 0) )
         return;
@@ -70,7 +73,18 @@ static void check_barrier(struct lock_debug *debug)
      * However, if we spin on an IRQ-unsafe lock with IRQs disabled then that
      * is clearly wrong, for the same reason outlined in check_lock() above.
      */
-    BUG_ON(!local_irq_is_enabled() && (debug->irq_safe == 0));
+    BUG_ON(!local_irq_is_enabled() && !debug->irq_safe);
+}
+
+static void got_lock(union lock_debug *debug)
+{
+    debug->cpu = smp_processor_id();
+}
+
+static void rel_lock(union lock_debug *debug)
+{
+    ASSERT(debug->cpu == smp_processor_id());
+    debug->cpu = SPINLOCK_NO_CPU;
 }
 
 void spin_debug_enable(void)
@@ -87,6 +101,8 @@ void spin_debug_disable(void)
 
 #define check_lock(l) ((void)0)
 #define check_barrier(l) ((void)0)
+#define got_lock(l) ((void)0)
+#define rel_lock(l) ((void)0)
 
 #endif
 
@@ -150,6 +166,7 @@ void inline _spin_lock_cb(spinlock_t *lock, void (*cb)(void *), void *data)
             cb(data);
         arch_lock_relax();
     }
+    got_lock(&lock->debug);
     LOCK_PROFILE_GOT;
     preempt_disable();
     arch_lock_acquire_barrier();
@@ -181,6 +198,7 @@ void _spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
     arch_lock_release_barrier();
     preempt_enable();
     LOCK_PROFILE_REL;
+    rel_lock(&lock->debug);
     add_sized(&lock->tickets.head, 1);
     arch_lock_signal();
 }
@@ -224,6 +242,7 @@ int _spin_trylock(spinlock_t *lock)
     if ( cmpxchg(&lock->tickets.head_tail,
                  old.head_tail, new.head_tail) != old.head_tail )
         return 0;
+    got_lock(&lock->debug);
 #ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
     if (lock->profile)
         lock->profile->time_locked = NOW();
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
index 2c7415e23a..88017e0a89 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
@@ -6,14 +6,21 @@
 #include <asm/types.h>
 
 #ifndef NDEBUG
-struct lock_debug {
-    s16 irq_safe; /* +1: IRQ-safe; 0: not IRQ-safe; -1: don't know yet */
+union lock_debug {
+    uint16_t val;
+#define LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL 0xffff
+    struct {
+        uint16_t cpu:12;
+        uint16_t pad:2;
+        bool irq_safe:1;
+        bool unseen:1;
+    };
 };
-#define _LOCK_DEBUG { -1 }
+#define _LOCK_DEBUG { LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL }
 void spin_debug_enable(void);
 void spin_debug_disable(void);
 #else
-struct lock_debug { };
+union lock_debug { };
 #define _LOCK_DEBUG { }
 #define spin_debug_enable() ((void)0)
 #define spin_debug_disable() ((void)0)
@@ -142,7 +149,7 @@ typedef struct spinlock {
 #define SPINLOCK_NO_CPU 0xfffu
     u16 recurse_cnt:4;
 #define SPINLOCK_MAX_RECURSE 0xfu
-    struct lock_debug debug;
+    union lock_debug debug;
 #ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
     struct lock_profile *profile;
 #endif
-- 
2.16.4


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] xen: add new CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS option

[Juergen Gross]

Instead of enabling debugging for debug builds only add a dedicated
Kconfig option for that purpose which defaults to DEBUG.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
V2:
- rename to CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS (Jan Beulich)
---
 xen/Kconfig.debug          | 7 +++++++
 xen/common/spinlock.c      | 4 ++--
 xen/include/xen/spinlock.h | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/Kconfig.debug b/xen/Kconfig.debug
index e10e314e25..1faaa3ba6a 100644
--- a/xen/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/xen/Kconfig.debug
@@ -51,6 +51,13 @@ config LOCK_PROFILE
 	  You can use serial console to print (and reset) using 'l' and 'L'
 	  respectively, or the 'xenlockprof' tool.
 
+config DEBUG_LOCKS
+	bool "Lock debugging"
+	default DEBUG
+	---help---
+	  Enable debugging features of lock handling.  Some additional
+	  checks will be performed when acquiring and releasing locks.
+
 config PERF_COUNTERS
 	bool "Performance Counters"
 	---help---
diff --git a/xen/common/spinlock.c b/xen/common/spinlock.c
index 1be1b5ebe6..79e70a9947 100644
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 #include <asm/processor.h>
 #include <asm/atomic.h>
 
-#ifndef NDEBUG
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS
 
 static atomic_t spin_debug __read_mostly = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
 
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ void spin_debug_disable(void)
     atomic_dec(&spin_debug);
 }
 
-#else /* defined(NDEBUG) */
+#else /* CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS */
 
 #define check_lock(l) ((void)0)
 #define check_barrier(l) ((void)0)
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
index 88017e0a89..736490f52b 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 #include <asm/spinlock.h>
 #include <asm/types.h>
 
-#ifndef NDEBUG
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS
 union lock_debug {
     uint16_t val;
 #define LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL 0xffff
-- 
2.16.4


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/5] xen: print lock profile info in panic()

[Juergen Gross]

Print the lock profile data when the system crashes and add some more
information for each lock data (lock address, cpu holding the lock).
While at it use the PRI_stime format specifier for printing time data.

This is especially beneficial for watchdog triggered crashes in case
of deadlocks.

In order to have the cpu holding the lock available let the
lock profile config option select DEBUG_LOCKS.

As printing the lock profile data will make use of locking, too, we
need to disable spinlock debugging before calling
spinlock_profile_printall() from panic().

While at it remove a superfluous #ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE and rename
CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE to CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE.

Also move the .lockprofile.data section to init area in linker scripts
as the data is no longer needed after boot.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
V2:
- rename CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE to CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE (Jan Beulich)
- move .lockprofile.data section to init area in linker scripts
- use PRI_stime (Andrew Cooper)
- don't print "cpu=4095", but "not locked" (Andrew Cooper)
---
 xen/Kconfig.debug          |  3 ++-
 xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S     | 13 +++++++------
 xen/arch/x86/domain.c      |  2 +-
 xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S     | 13 +++++++------
 xen/common/keyhandler.c    |  2 +-
 xen/common/spinlock.c      | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
 xen/common/sysctl.c        |  2 +-
 xen/drivers/char/console.c |  4 +++-
 xen/include/xen/spinlock.h | 12 +++++++-----
 9 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/Kconfig.debug b/xen/Kconfig.debug
index 1faaa3ba6a..22573e74db 100644
--- a/xen/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/xen/Kconfig.debug
@@ -44,8 +44,9 @@ config COVERAGE
 
 	  If unsure, say N here.
 
-config LOCK_PROFILE
+config DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
 	bool "Lock Profiling"
+	select DEBUG_LOCKS
 	---help---
 	  Lock profiling allows you to see how often locks are taken and blocked.
 	  You can use serial console to print (and reset) using 'l' and 'L'
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S b/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S
index 16ce1dd01e..a497f6a48d 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S
@@ -54,12 +54,6 @@ SECTIONS
        *(.data.rel.ro)
        *(.data.rel.ro.*)
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
-       . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
-       __lock_profile_start = .;
-       *(.lockprofile.data)
-       __lock_profile_end = .;
-#endif
        . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
        __param_start = .;
        *(.data.param)
@@ -173,6 +167,13 @@ SECTIONS
        . = ALIGN(4);
        *(.altinstr_replacement)
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
+       . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
+       __lock_profile_start = .;
+       *(.lockprofile.data)
+       __lock_profile_end = .;
+#endif
+
        *(.init.data)
        *(.init.data.rel)
        *(.init.data.rel.*)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
index bc082ed827..b1c67c2d28 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ struct domain *alloc_domain_struct(void)
 #endif
 
 
-#ifndef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
     BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*d) > PAGE_SIZE);
 #endif
     d = alloc_xenheap_pages(order, MEMF_bits(bits));
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
index 87fa02b9b5..111edb5360 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
@@ -128,12 +128,6 @@ SECTIONS
        *(.ex_table.pre)
        __stop___pre_ex_table = .;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
-       . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
-       __lock_profile_start = .;
-       *(.lockprofile.data)
-       __lock_profile_end = .;
-#endif
        . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
        __param_start = .;
        *(.data.param)
@@ -251,6 +245,13 @@ SECTIONS
         *(.altinstructions)
         __alt_instructions_end = .;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
+       . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
+       __lock_profile_start = .;
+       *(.lockprofile.data)
+       __lock_profile_end = .;
+#endif
+
        . = ALIGN(8);
        __ctors_start = .;
        *(.ctors)
diff --git a/xen/common/keyhandler.c b/xen/common/keyhandler.c
index 57b360ee4b..c36baa4dff 100644
--- a/xen/common/keyhandler.c
+++ b/xen/common/keyhandler.c
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static struct keyhandler {
     KEYHANDLER('P', perfc_reset, "reset performance counters", 0),
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
     KEYHANDLER('l', spinlock_profile_printall, "print lock profile info", 1),
     KEYHANDLER('L', spinlock_profile_reset, "reset lock profile info", 0),
 #endif
diff --git a/xen/common/spinlock.c b/xen/common/spinlock.c
index 79e70a9947..c4f706c627 100644
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ void spin_debug_disable(void)
 
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
 
 #define LOCK_PROFILE_REL                                                     \
     if (lock->profile)                                                       \
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ int _spin_trylock(spinlock_t *lock)
                  old.head_tail, new.head_tail) != old.head_tail )
         return 0;
     got_lock(&lock->debug);
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
     if (lock->profile)
         lock->profile->time_locked = NOW();
 #endif
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ int _spin_trylock(spinlock_t *lock)
 void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock)
 {
     spinlock_tickets_t sample;
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
     s_time_t block = NOW();
 #endif
 
@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock)
     {
         while ( observe_head(&lock->tickets) == sample.head )
             arch_lock_relax();
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
         if ( lock->profile )
         {
             lock->profile->time_block += NOW() - block;
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ void _spin_unlock_recursive(spinlock_t *lock)
     }
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
 
 struct lock_profile_anc {
     struct lock_profile_qhead *head_q;   /* first head of this type */
@@ -362,14 +362,19 @@ static void spinlock_profile_iterate(lock_profile_subfunc *sub, void *par)
 static void spinlock_profile_print_elem(struct lock_profile *data,
     int32_t type, int32_t idx, void *par)
 {
-    if ( type == LOCKPROF_TYPE_GLOBAL )
-        printk("%s %s:\n", lock_profile_ancs[type].name, data->name);
+    struct spinlock *lock = data->lock;
+
+    printk("%s ", lock_profile_ancs[type].name);
+    if ( type != LOCKPROF_TYPE_GLOBAL )
+        printk("%d ", idx);
+    printk("%s: addr=%p, lockval=%08x, ", data->name, lock,
+           lock->tickets.head_tail);
+    if ( lock->debug.cpu == SPINLOCK_NO_CPU )
+        printk("not locked\n");
     else
-        printk("%s %d %s:\n", lock_profile_ancs[type].name, idx, data->name);
-    printk("  lock:%12"PRId64"(%08X:%08X), block:%12"PRId64"(%08X:%08X)\n",
-           data->lock_cnt, (u32)(data->time_hold >> 32), (u32)data->time_hold,
-           data->block_cnt, (u32)(data->time_block >> 32),
-           (u32)data->time_block);
+        printk("cpu=%d\n", lock->debug.cpu);
+    printk("  lock:%" PRId64 "(%" PRI_stime "), block:%" PRId64 "(%" PRI_stime ")\n",
+           data->lock_cnt, data->time_hold, data->block_cnt, data->time_block);
 }
 
 void spinlock_profile_printall(unsigned char key)
@@ -488,7 +493,6 @@ void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(
     spin_unlock(&lock_profile_lock);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
 static int __init lock_prof_init(void)
 {
     struct lock_profile **q;
@@ -507,6 +511,5 @@ static int __init lock_prof_init(void)
     return 0;
 }
 __initcall(lock_prof_init);
-#endif
 
-#endif /* LOCK_PROFILE */
+#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE */
diff --git a/xen/common/sysctl.c b/xen/common/sysctl.c
index fcf2d2fd7c..9db94754d3 100644
--- a/xen/common/sysctl.c
+++ b/xen/common/sysctl.c
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ long do_sysctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_sysctl_t) u_sysctl)
         break;
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
     case XEN_SYSCTL_lockprof_op:
         ret = spinlock_profile_control(&op->u.lockprof_op);
         break;
diff --git a/xen/drivers/char/console.c b/xen/drivers/char/console.c
index 7f29190eaf..e133534be7 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/char/console.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/char/console.c
@@ -1170,7 +1170,9 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
     unsigned long flags;
     static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
     static char buf[128];
-    
+
+    spin_debug_disable();
+    spinlock_profile_printall('\0');
     debugtrace_dump();
 
     /* Protects buf[] and ensure multi-line message prints atomically. */
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
index 736490f52b..a7c1967ec7 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 #ifndef __SPINLOCK_H__
 #define __SPINLOCK_H__
 
+#include <xen/time.h>
 #include <asm/system.h>
 #include <asm/spinlock.h>
 #include <asm/types.h>
@@ -26,7 +27,7 @@ union lock_debug { };
 #define spin_debug_disable() ((void)0)
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
 
 #include <public/sysctl.h>
 
@@ -72,9 +73,9 @@ struct lock_profile {
     struct spinlock     *lock;       /* the lock itself */
     u64                 lock_cnt;    /* # of complete locking ops */
     u64                 block_cnt;   /* # of complete wait for lock */
-    s64                 time_hold;   /* cumulated lock time */
-    s64                 time_block;  /* cumulated wait time */
-    s64                 time_locked; /* system time of last locking */
+    s_time_t            time_hold;   /* cumulated lock time */
+    s_time_t            time_block;  /* cumulated wait time */
+    s_time_t            time_locked; /* system time of last locking */
 };
 
 struct lock_profile_qhead {
@@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { };
 #define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) spin_lock_init(&((s)->l))
 #define lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx, print)
 #define lock_profile_deregister_struct(type, ptr)
+#define spinlock_profile_printall(key)
 
 #endif
 
@@ -150,7 +152,7 @@ typedef struct spinlock {
     u16 recurse_cnt:4;
 #define SPINLOCK_MAX_RECURSE 0xfu
     union lock_debug debug;
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
     struct lock_profile *profile;
 #endif
 } spinlock_t;
-- 
2.16.4


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] xen: modify lock profiling interface

[Juergen Gross]

Today adding locks located in a struct to lock profiling requires a
unique type index for each structure. This makes it hard to add any
new structure as the related sysctl interface needs to be changed, too.

Instead of using an index the already existing struct name specified
in lock_profile_register_struct() can be used as an identifier instead.

Modify the sysctl interface to use the struct name instead of the type
index and adapt the related coding accordingly. Instead of an array of
struct anchors for lock profiling we now use a linked list for that
purpose. Use the special idx value -1 for cases where the idx isn't
relevant (global locks) and shouldn't be printed.

Increment the sysctl.h interface version as an interface is being
modified.

Add the missing setting of profiling time to xc_lockprof_query().

Add freeing element data when deregistering a structure.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
V2:
- add comment about memory allocation needs (Jan Beulich)
- check success of memory allocation (Jan Beulich)
---
 tools/libxc/xc_misc.c       |  1 +
 tools/misc/xenlockprof.c    | 17 ++------
 xen/common/domain.c         |  4 +-
 xen/common/spinlock.c       | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 xen/include/public/sysctl.h | 11 ++----
 xen/include/xen/spinlock.h  | 29 ++++++++------
 6 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_misc.c b/tools/libxc/xc_misc.c
index 8e60b6e9f0..22708f1b1f 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_misc.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_misc.c
@@ -533,6 +533,7 @@ int xc_lockprof_query(xc_interface *xch,
     rc = do_sysctl(xch, &sysctl);
 
     *n_elems = sysctl.u.lockprof_op.nr_elem;
+    *time = sysctl.u.lockprof_op.time;
 
     return rc;
 }
diff --git a/tools/misc/xenlockprof.c b/tools/misc/xenlockprof.c
index 11f43a35e3..c6aa3fe841 100644
--- a/tools/misc/xenlockprof.c
+++ b/tools/misc/xenlockprof.c
@@ -88,19 +88,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
     sb = 0;
     for ( j = 0; j < i; j++ )
     {
-        switch ( data[j].type )
-        {
-        case LOCKPROF_TYPE_GLOBAL:
-            sprintf(name, "global lock %s", data[j].name);
-            break;
-        case LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM:
-            sprintf(name, "domain %d lock %s", data[j].idx, data[j].name);
-            break;
-        default:
-            sprintf(name, "unknown type(%d) %d lock %s", data[j].type,
-                    data[j].idx, data[j].name);
-            break;
-        }
+        if ( data[j].idx == LOCKPROF_IDX_NONE )
+            sprintf(name, "%s %s", data[j].type, data[j].name);
+        else
+            sprintf(name, "%s %d %s", data[j].type, data[j].idx, data[j].name);
         l = (double)(data[j].lock_time) / 1E+09;
         b = (double)(data[j].block_time) / 1E+09;
         sl += l;
diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c
index 1f7a449f14..84749a28c8 100644
--- a/xen/common/domain.c
+++ b/xen/common/domain.c
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static void _domain_destroy(struct domain *d)
 
     xsm_free_security_domain(d);
 
-    lock_profile_deregister_struct(LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM, d);
+    lock_profile_deregister_struct(d, "Domain");
 
     free_domain_struct(d);
 }
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ struct domain *domain_create(domid_t domid,
         d->max_vcpus = config->max_vcpus;
     }
 
-    lock_profile_register_struct(LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM, d, domid, "Domain");
+    lock_profile_register_struct(d, domid, "Domain");
 
     if ( (err = xsm_alloc_security_domain(d)) != 0 )
         goto fail;
diff --git a/xen/common/spinlock.c b/xen/common/spinlock.c
index c4f706c627..cbde896ae6 100644
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -330,42 +330,43 @@ void _spin_unlock_recursive(spinlock_t *lock)
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE
 
 struct lock_profile_anc {
+    struct lock_profile_anc   *next;     /* next type */
     struct lock_profile_qhead *head_q;   /* first head of this type */
-    char                      *name;     /* descriptive string for print */
+    const char                *name;     /* descriptive string for print */
 };
 
 typedef void lock_profile_subfunc(
-    struct lock_profile *, int32_t, int32_t, void *);
+    struct lock_profile *, const char *, int32_t, void *);
 
 extern struct lock_profile *__lock_profile_start;
 extern struct lock_profile *__lock_profile_end;
 
 static s_time_t lock_profile_start;
-static struct lock_profile_anc lock_profile_ancs[LOCKPROF_TYPE_N];
+static struct lock_profile_anc *lock_profile_ancs;
 static struct lock_profile_qhead lock_profile_glb_q;
 static spinlock_t lock_profile_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
 
 static void spinlock_profile_iterate(lock_profile_subfunc *sub, void *par)
 {
-    int i;
+    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
     struct lock_profile_qhead *hq;
     struct lock_profile *eq;
 
     spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
-    for ( i = 0; i < LOCKPROF_TYPE_N; i++ )
-        for ( hq = lock_profile_ancs[i].head_q; hq; hq = hq->head_q )
+    for ( anc = lock_profile_ancs; anc; anc = anc->next )
+        for ( hq = anc->head_q; hq; hq = hq->head_q )
             for ( eq = hq->elem_q; eq; eq = eq->next )
-                sub(eq, i, hq->idx, par);
+                sub(eq, anc->name, hq->idx, par);
     spin_unlock(&lock_profile_lock);
 }
 
 static void spinlock_profile_print_elem(struct lock_profile *data,
-    int32_t type, int32_t idx, void *par)
+    const char *type, int32_t idx, void *par)
 {
     struct spinlock *lock = data->lock;
 
-    printk("%s ", lock_profile_ancs[type].name);
-    if ( type != LOCKPROF_TYPE_GLOBAL )
+    printk("%s ", type);
+    if ( idx != LOCKPROF_IDX_NONE )
         printk("%d ", idx);
     printk("%s: addr=%p, lockval=%08x, ", data->name, lock,
            lock->tickets.head_tail);
@@ -389,7 +390,7 @@ void spinlock_profile_printall(unsigned char key)
 }
 
 static void spinlock_profile_reset_elem(struct lock_profile *data,
-    int32_t type, int32_t idx, void *par)
+    const char *type, int32_t idx, void *par)
 {
     data->lock_cnt = 0;
     data->block_cnt = 0;
@@ -413,7 +414,7 @@ typedef struct {
 } spinlock_profile_ucopy_t;
 
 static void spinlock_profile_ucopy_elem(struct lock_profile *data,
-    int32_t type, int32_t idx, void *par)
+    const char *type, int32_t idx, void *par)
 {
     spinlock_profile_ucopy_t *p = par;
     struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_data elem;
@@ -424,7 +425,7 @@ static void spinlock_profile_ucopy_elem(struct lock_profile *data,
     if ( p->pc->nr_elem < p->pc->max_elem )
     {
         safe_strcpy(elem.name, data->name);
-        elem.type = type;
+        safe_strcpy(elem.type, type);
         elem.idx = idx;
         elem.lock_cnt = data->lock_cnt;
         elem.block_cnt = data->block_cnt;
@@ -465,31 +466,70 @@ int spinlock_profile_control(struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_op *pc)
     return rc;
 }
 
-void _lock_profile_register_struct(
-    int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead, int32_t idx, char *name)
+static struct lock_profile_anc *find_prof_anc(const char *name)
 {
-    qhead->idx = idx;
+    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
+
+    for ( anc = lock_profile_ancs; anc; anc = anc->next )
+        if ( !strcmp(anc->name, name) )
+            return anc;
+    return NULL;
+}
+
+void _lock_profile_register_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead,
+                                   int32_t idx, const char *name)
+{
+    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
+
     spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
-    qhead->head_q = lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q;
-    lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q = qhead;
-    lock_profile_ancs[type].name = name;
+
+    anc = find_prof_anc(name);
+    if ( !anc )
+    {
+        anc = xzalloc(struct lock_profile_anc);
+        if ( !anc )
+            goto out;
+        anc->name = name;
+        anc->next = lock_profile_ancs;
+        lock_profile_ancs = anc;
+    }
+
+    qhead->idx = idx;
+    qhead->head_q = anc->head_q;
+    anc->head_q = qhead;
+
+ out:
     spin_unlock(&lock_profile_lock);
 }
 
-void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(
-    int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead)
+void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead,
+                                     const char *name)
 {
+    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
     struct lock_profile_qhead **q;
+    struct lock_profile *elem;
 
     spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
-    for ( q = &lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q; *q; q = &(*q)->head_q )
+
+    anc = find_prof_anc(name);
+    if ( anc )
     {
-        if ( *q == qhead )
+        for ( q = &anc->head_q; *q; q = &(*q)->head_q )
         {
-            *q = qhead->head_q;
-            break;
+            if ( *q == qhead )
+            {
+                *q = qhead->head_q;
+                while ( qhead->elem_q )
+                {
+                    elem = qhead->elem_q;
+                    qhead->elem_q = elem->next;
+                    xfree(elem);
+                }
+                break;
+            }
         }
     }
+
     spin_unlock(&lock_profile_lock);
 }
 
@@ -504,9 +544,8 @@ static int __init lock_prof_init(void)
         (*q)->lock->profile = *q;
     }
 
-    _lock_profile_register_struct(
-        LOCKPROF_TYPE_GLOBAL, &lock_profile_glb_q,
-        0, "Global lock");
+    _lock_profile_register_struct(&lock_profile_glb_q, LOCKPROF_IDX_NONE,
+                                  "Global");
 
     return 0;
 }
diff --git a/xen/include/public/sysctl.h b/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
index 91c48dcae0..fafce64f02 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
 #include "domctl.h"
 #include "physdev.h"
 
-#define XEN_SYSCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION 0x00000012
+#define XEN_SYSCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION 0x00000013
 
 /*
  * Read console content from Xen buffer ring.
@@ -433,14 +433,11 @@ struct xen_sysctl_page_offline_op {
 /* Sub-operations: */
 #define XEN_SYSCTL_LOCKPROF_reset 1   /* Reset all profile data to zero. */
 #define XEN_SYSCTL_LOCKPROF_query 2   /* Get lock profile information. */
-/* Record-type: */
-#define LOCKPROF_TYPE_GLOBAL      0   /* global lock, idx meaningless */
-#define LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM      1   /* per-domain lock, idx is domid */
-#define LOCKPROF_TYPE_N           2   /* number of types */
 struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_data {
-    char     name[40];     /* lock name (may include up to 2 %d specifiers) */
-    int32_t  type;         /* LOCKPROF_TYPE_??? */
+    char     name[40];     /* lock name */
+    char     type[20];     /* e.g. "domain" */
     int32_t  idx;          /* index (e.g. domain id) */
+#define LOCKPROF_IDX_NONE  -1
     uint64_aligned_t lock_cnt;     /* # of locking succeeded */
     uint64_aligned_t block_cnt;    /* # of wait for lock */
     uint64_aligned_t lock_time;    /* nsecs lock held */
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
index a7c1967ec7..decaddd9fc 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
@@ -50,19 +50,24 @@ union lock_debug { };
 
       with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the spinlock field
 
+      It should be noted that this will need to allocate memory, so interrupts
+      must be enabled.
+
     - each structure has to be added to profiling with
 
-      lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx, print);
+      lock_profile_register_struct(ptr, idx, print);
 
       with:
-        type:  something like LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM
         ptr:   pointer to the structure
         idx:   index of that structure, e.g. domid
         print: descriptive string like "domain"
 
+      It should be noted that this will might need to allocate memory, so
+      interrupts must be enabled.
+
     - removing of a structure is done via
 
-      lock_profile_deregister_struct(type, ptr);
+      lock_profile_deregister_struct(ptr, print);
 */
 
 struct spinlock;
@@ -108,14 +113,14 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead {
         (s)->profile_head.elem_q = prof;                                      \
     } while(0)
 
-void _lock_profile_register_struct(
-    int32_t, struct lock_profile_qhead *, int32_t, char *);
-void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(int32_t, struct lock_profile_qhead *);
+void _lock_profile_register_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *, int32_t,
+                                   const char *);
+void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *, const char *);
 
-#define lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx, print)                   \
-    _lock_profile_register_struct(type, &((ptr)->profile_head), idx, print)
-#define lock_profile_deregister_struct(type, ptr)                             \
-    _lock_profile_deregister_struct(type, &((ptr)->profile_head))
+#define lock_profile_register_struct(ptr, idx, print)                         \
+    _lock_profile_register_struct(&((ptr)->profile_head), idx, print)
+#define lock_profile_deregister_struct(ptr, print)                            \
+    _lock_profile_deregister_struct(&((ptr)->profile_head), print)
 
 extern int spinlock_profile_control(struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_op *pc);
 extern void spinlock_profile_printall(unsigned char key);
@@ -129,8 +134,8 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { };
 #define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(l) spinlock_t l = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
 
 #define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) spin_lock_init(&((s)->l))
-#define lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx, print)
-#define lock_profile_deregister_struct(type, ptr)
+#define lock_profile_register_struct(ptr, idx, print)
+#define lock_profile_deregister_struct(ptr, print)
 #define spinlock_profile_printall(key)
 
 #endif
-- 
2.16.4


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
locks "lock" need to be renamed.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
 xen/arch/x86/irq.c         | 6 +++---
 xen/arch/x86/time.c        | 6 +++---
 xen/common/keyhandler.c    | 6 +++---
 xen/common/perfc.c         | 6 +++---
 xen/common/trace.c         | 6 +++---
 xen/drivers/char/console.c | 6 +++---
 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
index 0ee33464d2..c348f9e6c9 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
@@ -867,14 +867,14 @@ void set_direct_apic_vector(
 void alloc_direct_apic_vector(
     uint8_t *vector, void (*handler)(struct cpu_user_regs *))
 {
-    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
+    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(apic_alloc_lock);
 
-    spin_lock(&lock);
+    spin_lock(&apic_alloc_lock);
     if (*vector == 0) {
         *vector = alloc_hipriority_vector();
         set_direct_apic_vector(*vector, handler);
     }
-    spin_unlock(&lock);
+    spin_unlock(&apic_alloc_lock);
 }
 
 void do_IRQ(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/time.c b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
index d8242295ef..9e8f3e65b1 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
@@ -1426,9 +1426,9 @@ static void tsc_check_slave(void *unused)
 static void tsc_check_reliability(void)
 {
     unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
-    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
+    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tsc_check_lock);
 
-    spin_lock(&lock);
+    spin_lock(&tsc_check_lock);
 
     tsc_check_count++;
     smp_call_function(tsc_check_slave, NULL, 0);
@@ -1439,7 +1439,7 @@ static void tsc_check_reliability(void)
     while ( !cpumask_empty(&tsc_check_cpumask) )
         cpu_relax();
 
-    spin_unlock(&lock);
+    spin_unlock(&tsc_check_lock);
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/xen/common/keyhandler.c b/xen/common/keyhandler.c
index c36baa4dff..6e4ff890db 100644
--- a/xen/common/keyhandler.c
+++ b/xen/common/keyhandler.c
@@ -371,9 +371,9 @@ static void read_clocks(unsigned char key)
     static u64 sumdif_stime = 0, maxdif_stime = 0;
     static u64 sumdif_cycles = 0, maxdif_cycles = 0;
     static u32 count = 0;
-    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
+    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(read_clocks_lock);
 
-    spin_lock(&lock);
+    spin_lock(&read_clocks_lock);
 
     smp_call_function(read_clocks_slave, NULL, 0);
 
@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static void read_clocks(unsigned char key)
     min_cycles = per_cpu(read_cycles_time, min_cycles_cpu);
     max_cycles = per_cpu(read_cycles_time, max_cycles_cpu);
 
-    spin_unlock(&lock);
+    spin_unlock(&read_clocks_lock);
 
     dif_stime = max_stime - min_stime;
     if ( dif_stime > maxdif_stime )
diff --git a/xen/common/perfc.c b/xen/common/perfc.c
index 3abe35892a..8a099fb0be 100644
--- a/xen/common/perfc.c
+++ b/xen/common/perfc.c
@@ -241,10 +241,10 @@ static int perfc_copy_info(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(xen_sysctl_perfc_desc_t) desc,
 /* Dom0 control of perf counters */
 int perfc_control(struct xen_sysctl_perfc_op *pc)
 {
-    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
+    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(perfc_control_lock);
     int rc;
 
-    spin_lock(&lock);
+    spin_lock(&perfc_control_lock);
 
     switch ( pc->cmd )
     {
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ int perfc_control(struct xen_sysctl_perfc_op *pc)
         break;
     }
 
-    spin_unlock(&lock);
+    spin_unlock(&perfc_control_lock);
 
     pc->nr_counters = NR_PERFCTRS;
     pc->nr_vals = perfc_nbr_vals;
diff --git a/xen/common/trace.c b/xen/common/trace.c
index d1ef81407b..a216bea00c 100644
--- a/xen/common/trace.c
+++ b/xen/common/trace.c
@@ -368,10 +368,10 @@ void __init init_trace_bufs(void)
  */
 int tb_control(struct xen_sysctl_tbuf_op *tbc)
 {
-    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
+    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tb_control_lock);
     int rc = 0;
 
-    spin_lock(&lock);
+    spin_lock(&tb_control_lock);
 
     switch ( tbc->cmd )
     {
@@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ int tb_control(struct xen_sysctl_tbuf_op *tbc)
         break;
     }
 
-    spin_unlock(&lock);
+    spin_unlock(&tb_control_lock);
 
     return rc;
 }
diff --git a/xen/drivers/char/console.c b/xen/drivers/char/console.c
index e133534be7..e713eeff8e 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/char/console.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/char/console.c
@@ -1168,7 +1168,7 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
 {
     va_list args;
     unsigned long flags;
-    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
+    static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(panic_lock);
     static char buf[128];
 
     spin_debug_disable();
@@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
     debugtrace_dump();
 
     /* Protects buf[] and ensure multi-line message prints atomically. */
-    spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
+    spin_lock_irqsave(&panic_lock, flags);
 
     va_start(args, fmt);
     (void)vsnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), fmt, args);
@@ -1196,7 +1196,7 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
         printk("Reboot in five seconds...\n");
 #endif
 
-    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock, flags);
+    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&panic_lock, flags);
 
     debugger_trap_immediate();
 
-- 
2.16.4


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/5] xen/spinlocks: in debug builds store cpu holding the lock

[Jan Beulich]

On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
> @@ -6,14 +6,21 @@
>  #include <asm/types.h>
>  
>  #ifndef NDEBUG
> -struct lock_debug {
> -    s16 irq_safe; /* +1: IRQ-safe; 0: not IRQ-safe; -1: don't know yet */
> +union lock_debug {
> +    uint16_t val;
> +#define LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL 0xffff
> +    struct {
> +        uint16_t cpu:12;

I'm afraid I have one more request: The literal 12 in struct spinlock is
sitting right next to the SPINLOCK_NO_CPU definition, making it pretty
unlikely that both author and reviewer of a change wouldn't notice one
getting changed without adjustment to the other. The literal 12 here,
though, is sufficiently remote to that other place, so there needs to be
a connection established. Best I can think of right away is to have a
#define for the 12, move SPINLOCK_NO_CPU's definition next to it, and
use the new constant in both places.

> +        uint16_t pad:2;

While at it, would you mind making this an unnamed field?

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] xen: add new CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS option

[Jan Beulich]

On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Instead of enabling debugging for debug builds only add a dedicated
> Kconfig option for that purpose which defaults to DEBUG.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/5] xen: print lock profile info in panic()

[Jan Beulich]

On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
> V2:
> - rename CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE to CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE (Jan Beulich)
> - move .lockprofile.data section to init area in linker scripts

How can this be correct, when you don't change lock_prof_init() at
all? The function builds a linked list from the entries in the
section, and then hands the head of this list to
_lock_profile_register_struct(). I guess I must be missing
something. Anyway, everything else here looks good to me.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/5] xen/spinlocks: in debug builds store cpu holding the lock

[Juergen Gross]

On 03.09.19 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>> @@ -6,14 +6,21 @@
>>   #include <asm/types.h>
>>   
>>   #ifndef NDEBUG
>> -struct lock_debug {
>> -    s16 irq_safe; /* +1: IRQ-safe; 0: not IRQ-safe; -1: don't know yet */
>> +union lock_debug {
>> +    uint16_t val;
>> +#define LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL 0xffff
>> +    struct {
>> +        uint16_t cpu:12;
> 
> I'm afraid I have one more request: The literal 12 in struct spinlock is
> sitting right next to the SPINLOCK_NO_CPU definition, making it pretty
> unlikely that both author and reviewer of a change wouldn't notice one
> getting changed without adjustment to the other. The literal 12 here,
> though, is sufficiently remote to that other place, so there needs to be
> a connection established. Best I can think of right away is to have a
> #define for the 12, move SPINLOCK_NO_CPU's definition next to it, and
> use the new constant in both places.

Can do.

> 
>> +        uint16_t pad:2;
> 
> While at it, would you mind making this an unnamed field?

NP. I guess the "2" should then be replaced to depend on the added
#define above.


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/5] xen: print lock profile info in panic()

[Juergen Gross]

On 03.09.19 16:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> V2:
>> - rename CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE to CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE (Jan Beulich)
>> - move .lockprofile.data section to init area in linker scripts
> 
> How can this be correct, when you don't change lock_prof_init() at
> all? The function builds a linked list from the entries in the
> section, and then hands the head of this list to
> _lock_profile_register_struct(). I guess I must be missing
> something. Anyway, everything else here looks good to me.

The .lockprofile.data section contains only the pointers to the
elements put into the linked list. And those pointers are no longer
needed afterwards.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] xen: modify lock profiling interface

[Jan Beulich]

On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today adding locks located in a struct to lock profiling requires a
> unique type index for each structure. This makes it hard to add any
> new structure as the related sysctl interface needs to be changed, too.
> 
> Instead of using an index the already existing struct name specified
> in lock_profile_register_struct() can be used as an identifier instead.
> 
> Modify the sysctl interface to use the struct name instead of the type
> index and adapt the related coding accordingly. Instead of an array of
> struct anchors for lock profiling we now use a linked list for that
> purpose. Use the special idx value -1 for cases where the idx isn't
> relevant (global locks) and shouldn't be printed.

Just to make explicit what was implied by my v1 reply: I can see why
you want to do this, but I'm not really a friend of string literals
in the hypercall interface, when binary values can also do. So to
me this looks to be a move in the wrong direction. Therefore, while
I'm fine reviewing such a change, I'm not very likely to eventually
ack it.

> @@ -465,31 +466,70 @@ int spinlock_profile_control(struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_op *pc)
>      return rc;
>  }
>  
> -void _lock_profile_register_struct(
> -    int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead, int32_t idx, char *name)
> +static struct lock_profile_anc *find_prof_anc(const char *name)
>  {
> -    qhead->idx = idx;
> +    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
> +
> +    for ( anc = lock_profile_ancs; anc; anc = anc->next )
> +        if ( !strcmp(anc->name, name) )
> +            return anc;
> +    return NULL;
> +}

Blank line before main return statement please.

> +void _lock_profile_register_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead,
> +                                   int32_t idx, const char *name)
> +{
> +    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
> +
>      spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
> -    qhead->head_q = lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q;
> -    lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q = qhead;
> -    lock_profile_ancs[type].name = name;
> +
> +    anc = find_prof_anc(name);
> +    if ( !anc )
> +    {
> +        anc = xzalloc(struct lock_profile_anc);

Hmm, another allocation with a lock held. We try to avoid such as
much as possible, and it doesn't look overly difficult to avoid it
here.

> +        if ( !anc )
> +            goto out;
> +        anc->name = name;
> +        anc->next = lock_profile_ancs;
> +        lock_profile_ancs = anc;
> +    }
> +
> +    qhead->idx = idx;
> +    qhead->head_q = anc->head_q;
> +    anc->head_q = qhead;
> +
> + out:
>      spin_unlock(&lock_profile_lock);
>  }
>  
> -void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(
> -    int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead)
> +void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead,
> +                                     const char *name)
>  {
> +    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
>      struct lock_profile_qhead **q;
> +    struct lock_profile *elem;
>  
>      spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
> -    for ( q = &lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q; *q; q = &(*q)->head_q )
> +
> +    anc = find_prof_anc(name);
> +    if ( anc )
>      {
> -        if ( *q == qhead )
> +        for ( q = &anc->head_q; *q; q = &(*q)->head_q )
>          {
> -            *q = qhead->head_q;
> -            break;
> +            if ( *q == qhead )
> +            {
> +                *q = qhead->head_q;
> +                while ( qhead->elem_q )
> +                {
> +                    elem = qhead->elem_q;
> +                    qhead->elem_q = elem->next;
> +                    xfree(elem);

Which assumes the global list would never get handed here. Probably
fine.

> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
> @@ -50,19 +50,24 @@ union lock_debug { };
>  
>        with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the spinlock field
>  
> +      It should be noted that this will need to allocate memory, so interrupts
> +      must be enabled.
> +
>      - each structure has to be added to profiling with
>  
> -      lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx, print);
> +      lock_profile_register_struct(ptr, idx, print);
>  
>        with:
> -        type:  something like LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM
>          ptr:   pointer to the structure
>          idx:   index of that structure, e.g. domid
>          print: descriptive string like "domain"
>  
> +      It should be noted that this will might need to allocate memory, so

Nit: "will" or "might", but not both.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Jan Beulich]

On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
> locks "lock" need to be renamed.

But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
dual use of "name" in

#define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }

so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new

#define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }

if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/5] xen/spinlocks: in debug builds store cpu holding the lock

[Jan Beulich]

On 03.09.2019 16:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03.09.19 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>>> @@ -6,14 +6,21 @@
>>>   #include <asm/types.h>
>>>   
>>>   #ifndef NDEBUG
>>> -struct lock_debug {
>>> -    s16 irq_safe; /* +1: IRQ-safe; 0: not IRQ-safe; -1: don't know yet */
>>> +union lock_debug {
>>> +    uint16_t val;
>>> +#define LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL 0xffff
>>> +    struct {
>>> +        uint16_t cpu:12;
>>
>> I'm afraid I have one more request: The literal 12 in struct spinlock is
>> sitting right next to the SPINLOCK_NO_CPU definition, making it pretty
>> unlikely that both author and reviewer of a change wouldn't notice one
>> getting changed without adjustment to the other. The literal 12 here,
>> though, is sufficiently remote to that other place, so there needs to be
>> a connection established. Best I can think of right away is to have a
>> #define for the 12, move SPINLOCK_NO_CPU's definition next to it, and
>> use the new constant in both places.
> 
> Can do.
> 
>>
>>> +        uint16_t pad:2;
>>
>> While at it, would you mind making this an unnamed field?
> 
> NP. I guess the "2" should then be replaced to depend on the added
> #define above.

Ah yes, I didn't even notice this yet.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
> 
> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
> dual use of "name" in
> 
> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
> 
> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
> 
> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
> 
> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.

This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/5] xen: print lock profile info in panic()

[Jan Beulich]

On 03.09.2019 16:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03.09.19 16:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> V2:
>>> - rename CONFIG_LOCK_PROFILE to CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_PROFILE (Jan Beulich)
>>> - move .lockprofile.data section to init area in linker scripts
>>
>> How can this be correct, when you don't change lock_prof_init() at
>> all? The function builds a linked list from the entries in the
>> section, and then hands the head of this list to
>> _lock_profile_register_struct(). I guess I must be missing
>> something. Anyway, everything else here looks good to me.
> 
> The .lockprofile.data section contains only the pointers to the
> elements put into the linked list. And those pointers are no longer
> needed afterwards.

Oh, yes, I see now. Arguably worth making a separate change,
but since it's this way now
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Jan Beulich]

On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>
>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>> dual use of "name" in
>>
>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>
>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>
>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>
>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
> 
> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?

To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>
>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>
>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>
>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>
>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>
>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>
>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
> 
> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.

NP with me. It was Andrew who asked for a way to differentiate between
multiple locks. I'm not depending in any way on this patch.


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>
>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>
>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>
>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>
>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>
>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>
>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
> 
> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.

I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
data added to the names.

Would you be fine with this approach?


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] xen: modify lock profiling interface

[Juergen Gross]

On 03.09.19 16:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Today adding locks located in a struct to lock profiling requires a
>> unique type index for each structure. This makes it hard to add any
>> new structure as the related sysctl interface needs to be changed, too.
>>
>> Instead of using an index the already existing struct name specified
>> in lock_profile_register_struct() can be used as an identifier instead.
>>
>> Modify the sysctl interface to use the struct name instead of the type
>> index and adapt the related coding accordingly. Instead of an array of
>> struct anchors for lock profiling we now use a linked list for that
>> purpose. Use the special idx value -1 for cases where the idx isn't
>> relevant (global locks) and shouldn't be printed.
> 
> Just to make explicit what was implied by my v1 reply: I can see why
> you want to do this, but I'm not really a friend of string literals
> in the hypercall interface, when binary values can also do. So to
> me this looks to be a move in the wrong direction. Therefore, while
> I'm fine reviewing such a change, I'm not very likely to eventually
> ack it.

I'll write two example patches for adding support of lock profiling in a
new structure, one with patch 4 of this series applied and one for the
interface without that patch. This should make clear why I'm really in
favor of this patch.

> 
>> @@ -465,31 +466,70 @@ int spinlock_profile_control(struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_op *pc)
>>       return rc;
>>   }
>>   
>> -void _lock_profile_register_struct(
>> -    int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead, int32_t idx, char *name)
>> +static struct lock_profile_anc *find_prof_anc(const char *name)
>>   {
>> -    qhead->idx = idx;
>> +    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
>> +
>> +    for ( anc = lock_profile_ancs; anc; anc = anc->next )
>> +        if ( !strcmp(anc->name, name) )
>> +            return anc;
>> +    return NULL;
>> +}
> 
> Blank line before main return statement please.

Yes.

> 
>> +void _lock_profile_register_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead,
>> +                                   int32_t idx, const char *name)
>> +{
>> +    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
>> +
>>       spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
>> -    qhead->head_q = lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q;
>> -    lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q = qhead;
>> -    lock_profile_ancs[type].name = name;
>> +
>> +    anc = find_prof_anc(name);
>> +    if ( !anc )
>> +    {
>> +        anc = xzalloc(struct lock_profile_anc);
> 
> Hmm, another allocation with a lock held. We try to avoid such as
> much as possible, and it doesn't look overly difficult to avoid it
> here.

I'll modify it.

> 
>> +        if ( !anc )
>> +            goto out;
>> +        anc->name = name;
>> +        anc->next = lock_profile_ancs;
>> +        lock_profile_ancs = anc;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    qhead->idx = idx;
>> +    qhead->head_q = anc->head_q;
>> +    anc->head_q = qhead;
>> +
>> + out:
>>       spin_unlock(&lock_profile_lock);
>>   }
>>   
>> -void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(
>> -    int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead)
>> +void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead,
>> +                                     const char *name)
>>   {
>> +    struct lock_profile_anc *anc;
>>       struct lock_profile_qhead **q;
>> +    struct lock_profile *elem;
>>   
>>       spin_lock(&lock_profile_lock);
>> -    for ( q = &lock_profile_ancs[type].head_q; *q; q = &(*q)->head_q )
>> +
>> +    anc = find_prof_anc(name);
>> +    if ( anc )
>>       {
>> -        if ( *q == qhead )
>> +        for ( q = &anc->head_q; *q; q = &(*q)->head_q )
>>           {
>> -            *q = qhead->head_q;
>> -            break;
>> +            if ( *q == qhead )
>> +            {
>> +                *q = qhead->head_q;
>> +                while ( qhead->elem_q )
>> +                {
>> +                    elem = qhead->elem_q;
>> +                    qhead->elem_q = elem->next;
>> +                    xfree(elem);
> 
> Which assumes the global list would never get handed here. Probably
> fine.

I can add an ASSERT() to make this very clear.

> 
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
>> @@ -50,19 +50,24 @@ union lock_debug { };
>>   
>>         with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the spinlock field
>>   
>> +      It should be noted that this will need to allocate memory, so interrupts
>> +      must be enabled.
>> +
>>       - each structure has to be added to profiling with
>>   
>> -      lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx, print);
>> +      lock_profile_register_struct(ptr, idx, print);
>>   
>>         with:
>> -        type:  something like LOCKPROF_TYPE_PERDOM
>>           ptr:   pointer to the structure
>>           idx:   index of that structure, e.g. domid
>>           print: descriptive string like "domain"
>>   
>> +      It should be noted that this will might need to allocate memory, so
> 
> Nit: "will" or "might", but not both.

Indeed.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Jan Beulich]

On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>
>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>
>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>
>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>
>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>
>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>
>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>
>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
> 
> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
> data added to the names.
> 
> Would you be fine with this approach?

I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of __LINE__).
I wonder if __func__ or __FUNCTION__ could be used - the main question is
how they behave when used outside of a function. If either would be NULL
(rather than triggering a diagnostic), it might be usable here. Of course
this would be fragile if just based on observed (rather than documented)
behavior.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 04.09.19 10:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>>
>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>
>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>
>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>
>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>
>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>>
>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>>
>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>>
>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>> data added to the names.
>>
>> Would you be fine with this approach?
> 
> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of __LINE__).
> I wonder if __func__ or __FUNCTION__ could be used - the main question is
> how they behave when used outside of a function. If either would be NULL
> (rather than triggering a diagnostic), it might be usable here. Of course
> this would be fragile if just based on observed (rather than documented)
> behavior.

With gcc 7.4.1 it fails:

/home/gross/xen/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h:80:41: error: ‘__func__’ is 
not defined outside of function scope [-Werror]
  #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, __func__, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Jan Beulich]

On 04.09.2019 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04.09.19 10:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>>>
>>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>>>
>>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>>> data added to the names.
>>>
>>> Would you be fine with this approach?
>>
>> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of __LINE__).
>> I wonder if __func__ or __FUNCTION__ could be used - the main question is
>> how they behave when used outside of a function. If either would be NULL
>> (rather than triggering a diagnostic), it might be usable here. Of course
>> this would be fragile if just based on observed (rather than documented)
>> behavior.
> 
> With gcc 7.4.1 it fails:
> 
> /home/gross/xen/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h:80:41: error: ‘__func__’ is 
> not defined outside of function scope [-Werror]
>   #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, __func__, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }

Right, as I was afraid of. But __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ looks to be suitable
(as per the gcc doc, and as per there being clear indications that clang
also supports this).

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] xen: modify lock profiling interface

[Jan Beulich]

On 04.09.2019 10:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03.09.19 16:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Today adding locks located in a struct to lock profiling requires a
>>> unique type index for each structure. This makes it hard to add any
>>> new structure as the related sysctl interface needs to be changed, too.
>>>
>>> Instead of using an index the already existing struct name specified
>>> in lock_profile_register_struct() can be used as an identifier instead.
>>>
>>> Modify the sysctl interface to use the struct name instead of the type
>>> index and adapt the related coding accordingly. Instead of an array of
>>> struct anchors for lock profiling we now use a linked list for that
>>> purpose. Use the special idx value -1 for cases where the idx isn't
>>> relevant (global locks) and shouldn't be printed.
>>
>> Just to make explicit what was implied by my v1 reply: I can see why
>> you want to do this, but I'm not really a friend of string literals
>> in the hypercall interface, when binary values can also do. So to
>> me this looks to be a move in the wrong direction. Therefore, while
>> I'm fine reviewing such a change, I'm not very likely to eventually
>> ack it.
> 
> I'll write two example patches for adding support of lock profiling in a
> new structure, one with patch 4 of this series applied and one for the
> interface without that patch. This should make clear why I'm really in
> favor of this patch.

Well, I can easily see how one will be quite a bit smaller than the
other, but patch size / intrusiveness is not the only aspect to
consider. IOW I'm afraid the difference won't change my opinion on
string literals in hypercall interfaces. But recall, you don't
depend on me acking this patch of yours, there are enough other
people who can if they are happy with such a model.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Andrew Cooper]

On 04/09/2019 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>
>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>
>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>
>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>
>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>> data added to the names.
>>
>> Would you be fine with this approach?
> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of __LINE__).

The ok-ness of using __LINE__ is inversely proportional to the
likelihood of developing a livepatch for this particular build of Xen,
and what additional patching delta it would cause through unrelated changes.

We still have __LINE__ in a few cases in release builds because the
utility has been deemed to outweigh the additional livepatch overhead. 
A specific example is x86_emulate(), where the extra patching delta is 0
given that it is a single function.

For stuff which wouldn't be active in production builds, and unlikely to
be on the majority of debug builds, then it should be fine to use.

The one remaining problematic use of __LINE__ is in domain_crash() and
it needs to disappear because it tends to have a massive
unrelated-patch-delta for release builds.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 04.09.19 10:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/09/2019 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>>> data added to the names.
>>>
>>> Would you be fine with this approach?
>> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of __LINE__).
> 
> The ok-ness of using __LINE__ is inversely proportional to the
> likelihood of developing a livepatch for this particular build of Xen,
> and what additional patching delta it would cause through unrelated changes.

Not related to this patch, but to __LINE__ and livepatching: have you
considered to use the "#line" directive to avoid unrelated diffs?


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Andrew Cooper]

On 04/09/2019 10:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04.09.19 10:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 04/09/2019 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several
>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0,
>>>>>>> 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant,
>>>>>> so e.g.
>>>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed
>>>>>> "static" and
>>>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>>>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>>>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>>>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>>>> data added to the names.
>>>>
>>>> Would you be fine with this approach?
>>> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of
>>> __LINE__).
>>
>> The ok-ness of using __LINE__ is inversely proportional to the
>> likelihood of developing a livepatch for this particular build of Xen,
>> and what additional patching delta it would cause through unrelated
>> changes.
>
> Not related to this patch, but to __LINE__ and livepatching: have you
> considered to use the "#line" directive to avoid unrelated diffs?

There are ways to play with __LINE__, yes.  #line was brought up in the
original discussion.

As a thought experiment, how would you expect this to be used to
simplify a livepatch?

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 04.09.19 11:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/09/2019 10:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04.09.19 10:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2019 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several
>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0,
>>>>>>>> 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant,
>>>>>>> so e.g.
>>>>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed
>>>>>>> "static" and
>>>>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>>>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>>>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>>>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>>>>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>>>>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>>>>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>>>>> data added to the names.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you be fine with this approach?
>>>> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of
>>>> __LINE__).
>>>
>>> The ok-ness of using __LINE__ is inversely proportional to the
>>> likelihood of developing a livepatch for this particular build of Xen,
>>> and what additional patching delta it would cause through unrelated
>>> changes.
>>
>> Not related to this patch, but to __LINE__ and livepatching: have you
>> considered to use the "#line" directive to avoid unrelated diffs?
> 
> There are ways to play with __LINE__, yes.  #line was brought up in the
> original discussion.
> 
> As a thought experiment, how would you expect this to be used to
> simplify a livepatch?

It should be rather strait forward to write a tool adding #line
directives to a patch recovering the previous line numbers in the
code following a modification which added or removed lines.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Juergen Gross]

On 04.09.19 10:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.09.2019 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04.09.19 10:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 04.09.2019 10:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>>>>>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>>>>>>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>>>>>>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>>>>>>> dual use of "name" in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
>>>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
>>>>>> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
>>>>>
>>>>> To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
>>>>> stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
>>>>> way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
>>>>
>>>> I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
>>>> struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
>>>> lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
>>>> data added to the names.
>>>>
>>>> Would you be fine with this approach?
>>>
>>> I would be, but I'm afraid Andrew won't (as with any new uses of __LINE__).
>>> I wonder if __func__ or __FUNCTION__ could be used - the main question is
>>> how they behave when used outside of a function. If either would be NULL
>>> (rather than triggering a diagnostic), it might be usable here. Of course
>>> this would be fragile if just based on observed (rather than documented)
>>> behavior.
>>
>> With gcc 7.4.1 it fails:
>>
>> /home/gross/xen/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h:80:41: error: ‘__func__’ is
>> not defined outside of function scope [-Werror]
>>    #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, __func__, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
> 
> Right, as I was afraid of. But __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ looks to be suitable
> (as per the gcc doc, and as per there being clear indications that clang
> also supports this).

Yes, this is working. Will modify the patch.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel