All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:32:58 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgq+jxu6FJuKhZkprn7dO4DiG5pDjmYZzneQYTfKOM85g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:09 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > Eventually I'm mostly interested in the contended locks only and I
> > want to reduce the overhead in the fast path.  By moving that, it'd be
> > easy to track contended locks with timing by using two tracepoints.
>
> So why not put in two new tracepoints and call it a day?
>
> Why muck about with all that lockdep stuff just to preserve the name
> (and in the process continue to blow up data structures etc..). This
> leaves distros in a bind, will they enable this config and provide
> tracepoints while bloating the data structures and destroying things
> like lockref (which relies on sizeof(spinlock_t)), or not provide this
> at all.

If it's only lockref, is it possible to change it to use arch_spinlock_t
so that it can remain in 4 bytes?  It'd be really nice if we can keep
spin lock size, but it'd be easier to carry the name with it for
analysis IMHO.

Thanks,
Namhyung

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:32:58 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgq+jxu6FJuKhZkprn7dO4DiG5pDjmYZzneQYTfKOM85g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:09 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > Eventually I'm mostly interested in the contended locks only and I
> > want to reduce the overhead in the fast path.  By moving that, it'd be
> > easy to track contended locks with timing by using two tracepoints.
>
> So why not put in two new tracepoints and call it a day?
>
> Why muck about with all that lockdep stuff just to preserve the name
> (and in the process continue to blow up data structures etc..). This
> leaves distros in a bind, will they enable this config and provide
> tracepoints while bloating the data structures and destroying things
> like lockref (which relies on sizeof(spinlock_t)), or not provide this
> at all.

If it's only lockref, is it possible to change it to use arch_spinlock_t
so that it can remain in 4 bytes?  It'd be really nice if we can keep
spin lock size, but it'd be easier to carry the name with it for
analysis IMHO.

Thanks,
Namhyung

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:32:58 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgq+jxu6FJuKhZkprn7dO4DiG5pDjmYZzneQYTfKOM85g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:09 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > Eventually I'm mostly interested in the contended locks only and I
> > want to reduce the overhead in the fast path.  By moving that, it'd be
> > easy to track contended locks with timing by using two tracepoints.
>
> So why not put in two new tracepoints and call it a day?
>
> Why muck about with all that lockdep stuff just to preserve the name
> (and in the process continue to blow up data structures etc..). This
> leaves distros in a bind, will they enable this config and provide
> tracepoints while bloating the data structures and destroying things
> like lockref (which relies on sizeof(spinlock_t)), or not provide this
> at all.

If it's only lockref, is it possible to change it to use arch_spinlock_t
so that it can remain in 4 bytes?  It'd be really nice if we can keep
spin lock size, but it'd be easier to carry the name with it for
analysis IMHO.

Thanks,
Namhyung

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-02-10  0:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-08 18:41 [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1) Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:41 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:41 ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:41 ` [PATCH 01/12] locking: Pass correct outer wait type info Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:41 ` [PATCH 02/12] cgroup: rstat: Make cgroup_rstat_cpu_lock name readable Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:41   ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:46   ` Tejun Heo
2022-02-08 19:16     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:16       ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 23:51       ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 23:51         ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:41 ` [PATCH 03/12] timer: Protect lockdep functions with #ifdef Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:36   ` Steven Rostedt
2022-02-08 20:29     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 21:19       ` Steven Rostedt
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 04/12] workqueue: " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:48   ` Tejun Heo
2022-02-08 19:17     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:38   ` Steven Rostedt
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 05/12] drm/i915: " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42   ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:51   ` Jani Nikula
2022-02-08 18:51     ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2022-02-08 19:22     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:22       ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 13:49       ` Jani Nikula
2022-02-09 13:49         ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2022-02-09 16:27         ` Steven Rostedt
2022-02-09 16:27           ` [Intel-gfx] " Steven Rostedt
2022-02-09 19:28           ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:28             ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 06/12] btrfs: change lockdep class size check using ks->names Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:03   ` David Sterba
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 07/12] locking: Introduce CONFIG_LOCK_INFO Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 08/12] locking/mutex: Init name properly w/ CONFIG_LOCK_INFO Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 09/12] locking: Add more static lockdep init macros Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 10/12] locking: Add CONFIG_LOCK_TRACEPOINTS option Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 11/12] locking/mutex: Revive fast functions for CONFIG_LOCK_TRACEPOINTS Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09  8:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-09 20:15     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 18:42 ` [PATCH 12/12] locking: Move lock_acquired() from the fast path Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:14 ` [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1) Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:14   ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-08 19:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09  9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-09  9:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-09  9:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-09 18:19   ` [Intel-gfx] " Waiman Long
2022-02-09 18:19     ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 18:19     ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 18:29     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 18:29       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 18:29       ` [Intel-gfx] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:02       ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 19:02         ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 19:02         ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 19:17         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:17           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:17           ` [Intel-gfx] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:37           ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 19:37             ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 19:37             ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 19:22         ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:22           ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:22           ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:28           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:28             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:28             ` [Intel-gfx] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:45             ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:45               ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:45               ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-09 19:56               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:56                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 19:56                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-02-09 20:17               ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 20:17                 ` Waiman Long
2022-02-09 20:17                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Waiman Long
2022-02-10  0:27                 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-10  0:27                   ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-10  0:27                   ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-10  2:12                   ` Waiman Long
2022-02-10  2:12                     ` Waiman Long
2022-02-10  2:12                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Waiman Long
2022-02-10  9:33                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-10  9:33                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-10  9:33                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-10  0:32   ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2022-02-10  0:32     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-10  0:32     ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-10  9:13     ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-10  9:13       ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-10  9:13       ` [Intel-gfx] " Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-10 19:14       ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-02-10 19:14         ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-02-10 19:27         ` Waiman Long
2022-02-10 19:27           ` Waiman Long
2022-02-10 19:27           ` [Intel-gfx] " Waiman Long
2022-02-10 20:10           ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-02-10 20:10             ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-02-11  5:57             ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-11  5:57               ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-11  5:57               ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-11  5:55       ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-11  5:55         ` Namhyung Kim
2022-02-11  5:55         ` [Intel-gfx] " Namhyung Kim
2022-02-11 10:39         ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-11 10:39           ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-11 10:39           ` [Intel-gfx] " Peter Zijlstra

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=CAM9d7cgq+jxu6FJuKhZkprn7dO4DiG5pDjmYZzneQYTfKOM85g@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rburny@google.com \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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.