Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched, smp: Trace smp callback causing an IPI

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	x86@kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched, smp: Trace smp callback causing an IPI
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:53:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230322095329.GS2017917@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230307143558.294354-8-vschneid@redhat.com>

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:35:58PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:

> @@ -477,6 +490,25 @@ static __always_inline void csd_unlock(struct __call_single_data *csd)
>  	smp_store_release(&csd->node.u_flags, 0);
>  }
>  
> +static __always_inline void
> +raw_smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node, smp_call_func_t func)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * The list addition should be visible to the target CPU when it pops
> +	 * the head of the list to pull the entry off it in the IPI handler
> +	 * because of normal cache coherency rules implied by the underlying
> +	 * llist ops.
> +	 *
> +	 * If IPIs can go out of order to the cache coherency protocol
> +	 * in an architecture, sufficient synchronisation should be added
> +	 * to arch code to make it appear to obey cache coherency WRT
> +	 * locking and barrier primitives. Generic code isn't really
> +	 * equipped to do the right thing...
> +	 */
> +	if (llist_add(node, &per_cpu(call_single_queue, cpu)))
> +		send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu, func);
> +}
> +
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(call_single_data_t, csd_data);
>  
>  void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node)
> @@ -493,21 +525,25 @@ void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node)
>  		}
>  	}
>  #endif
>  	/*
> +	 * We have to check the type of the CSD before queueing it, because
> +	 * once queued it can have its flags cleared by
> +	 *   flush_smp_call_function_queue()
> +	 * even if we haven't sent the smp_call IPI yet (e.g. the stopper
> +	 * executes migration_cpu_stop() on the remote CPU).
>  	 */
> +	if (trace_ipi_send_cpumask_enabled()) {
> +		call_single_data_t *csd;
> +		smp_call_func_t func;
> +
> +		csd = container_of(node, call_single_data_t, node.llist);
> +		func = CSD_TYPE(csd) == CSD_TYPE_TTWU ?
> +			sched_ttwu_pending : csd->func;
> +
> +		raw_smp_call_single_queue(cpu, node, func);
> +	} else {
> +		raw_smp_call_single_queue(cpu, node, NULL);
> +	}
>  }

Hurmph... so we only really consume @func when we IPI. Would it not be
more useful to trace this thing for *every* csd enqeued?

_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc