From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752894AbbCaH1o (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:27:44 -0400
Received: from LGEMRELSE6Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.121]:36307 "EHLO
	lgemrelse6q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750909AbbCaH1n (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:27:43 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.220.203
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:21:02 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] segfault in perf-top -- thread refcnt
Message-ID: <20150331072102.GA20651@sejong>
References: <5515B9E6.5020007@gmail.com>
 <20150330080737.GD1413@krava>
 <20150330102220.GE1413@krava>
 <20150330112108.GG1413@krava>
 <20150330114907.GH1413@krava>
 <20150330124852.GA4507@danjae.kornet>
 <20150330145805.GC32560@kernel.org>
 <20150330151303.GD32560@kernel.org>
 <20150331002730.GE32033@sejong>
 <20150331004635.GB9438@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150331004635.GB9438@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:46:35PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 09:27:30AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:13:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:58:05AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > > Em Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:48:52PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > > > But this makes every sample processing grabs and releases the lock so
> > > > > might cause high overhead.  It can be a problem if such processing is
> > > > > done parallelly like my multi-thread work. :-/
> > > > 
> > > > Still untested, using rw lock, next step is auditing the
> > > > machine__findnew_thread users that really should be using
> > > > machine__find_thread, i.e. grabbing just the reader lock, and measuring
> > > > the overhead of using a pthread rw lock instead of pthread_mutex_t as
> > > > Jiri is doing.
> > > 
> > > Don't bother trying it, doesn't even compile ;-\
> > 
> > OK. :)
> > 
> > But I think rw lock still has not-so-low overhead as it involves
> > atomic operations and cache misses.
> 
> But we will have to serialize access to the data structure at some
> point...

Yes, as long as we keep ref-counting.

I'm guessing if we only focus on the perf top case, there might be a
way to cleanup dead threads without ref-counting (i.e. w/o affecting
fastpath on the perf report).

Thanks,
Namhyung