From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] trace,x86: Add nmi to the irq_vectors class
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:24:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9fc0399e-ab53-1074-623a-a826e2466277@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904052323200.1802@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On 4/5/19 11:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> Currently, the irq_vector class of tracepoints does not include the NMI
>> entry. The NMI was in the first set of tracepoints for IRQs, but it was
>> dropped off because of the logic of switching IDT when enabling trace[1].
>> However, as the switching IDT logic was removed [2], it is possible to add
>
> Well, not really. tracepoints inside of do_nmi() have been there for a long
> time.
>
> The nasty part was that the irq_vector patches injected the tracepoints way
> down in the low level entry code, which caused more problems than it solved
> including the extra IDT switcheroo.
humm... the benefits of having the tracepoints at the very begin/end of the
handler is that it captures better the amount of interference/overhead it caused
in the current thread (and IRQ too in the case of NMIs).
>> the NMI tracepoints back.
>
> So again we have two tracepoints. One for the entry and one for the
> handlers. Do we really need both? If so please provide some rationale.
For example:
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1253.162036: nmi_entry: vector=2
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1253.162038: nmi_handler: nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler()
delta_ns: 354 handled: 0
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1253.162267: nmi_exit: vector=2
The nmi_handler tracepoint points to an interference of 354 ns, what is very
good! But the difference of time between the two irq_vectors tracepoint is:
1253.162267-1253.162036 = 231 us!
The number looks really odd, but tracing with function tracer, we see this:
Thread running:
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689288: rcu_nmi_enter <-do_nmi
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689289: rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs <-rcu_nmi_enter
NMI starts:
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689290: nmi_entry: vector=2
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689291: default_do_nmi <-do_nmi
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689291: nmi_handle <-default_do_nmi
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689291: nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler <-nmi_handle
It handles very fast:
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689292: nmi_handler: nmi_cpu_backtrace_handler()
delta_ns: 780 handled: 0
But some other functions continues running in the NMI context:
[Dazed and confused, but trying to continue message ]
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689292: _raw_spin_trylock <-default_do_nmi
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689566: unknown_nmi_error <-default_do_nmi
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689566: nmi_handle <-unknown_nmi_error
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689567: printk <-unknown_nmi_error
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689567: vprintk_func <-printk
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689567: printk_safe_log_store <-vprintk_func
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689569: arch_irq_work_raise <-irq_work_queue
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689569: default_send_IPI_self <-arch_irq_work_raise
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689569: __default_send_IPI_shortcut
<-default_send_IPI_self
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689585: native_apic_wait_icr_idle <-arch_irq_work_raise
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689588: printk <-unknown_nmi_error
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689588: vprintk_func <-printk
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689588: printk_safe_log_store <-vprintk_func
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689588: printk <-unknown_nmi_error.cold.13
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689588: vprintk_func <-printk
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689588: printk_safe_log_store <-vprintk_func
Handler finishes:
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689589: nmi_exit: vector=2
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689589: rcu_nmi_exit <-do_nmi
f-4447 [000] d.Z. 1487.689589: rcu_irq_exit <-rcu_nmi_exit
And it was actually also (potentially) delaying an timer:
f-4447 [000] d... 1487.689590: smp_irq_work_interrupt <-irq_work_interrupt
So, the nmi_handle tracepoint would not make suspicious that the NMI caused the
delay, but the irq_vectors would (because of their position).
Finally, we would have to enable a single class of tracepoints to monitor all
interrupts.
PS: I am using the vanilla kernel in a vm, so the numbers are higher, but still,
they have the same scale in the bare metal.
Thoughts?
-- Daniel
>> The tracepoints looks like:
>> <idle>-0 [000] d.Z. 179.594315: nmi_entry: vector=2
>> <idle>-0 [000] d.Z. 179.594396: nmi_exit: vector=2
>>
>> [1] trace,x86: irq vector tracepoint support
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/555465/
>
> Please use https://lkml.kernel.org/r/$MESSAGE-ID
>
>> [2] commit 4b9a8dca0e58 ("x86/idt: Remove the tracing IDT completely")
>>
>> Changes from V1:
>> - Fix a compilation problem when CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC is not set (kbuild test)
>
> Please put changes below the '---' separator. They are not part of the
> final changelog and having them below spares the maintainer the time to
> remove them manually.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-08 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-01 18:19 [PATCH V2 1/2] trace,x86: Add external_interrupts to the irq_vectors class Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2019-04-01 18:19 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] trace,x86: Add nmi " Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2019-04-05 21:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-08 12:24 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira [this message]
2019-04-08 13:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-04-08 13:57 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2019-04-08 14:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-04-05 21:15 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] trace,x86: Add external_interrupts " Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-08 9:48 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
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=9fc0399e-ab53-1074-623a-a826e2466277@redhat.com \
--to=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).