Re: [PATCH 10/11] tracing/perf: Fix lock events recursions in thefast path
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Thu Feb 04 2010 - 21:39:54 EST
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:14:34AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> There are rcu locked read side areas in the path where we submit
>> a trace events. And these rcu_read_(un)lock() trigger lock events,
>> which create recursive events.
>>
>> One pair in do_perf_sw_event:
>>
>> __lock_acquire
>> |
>> |--96.11%-- lock_acquire
>> | |
>> | |--27.21%-- do_perf_sw_event
>> | | perf_tp_event
>> | | |
>> | | |--49.62%-- ftrace_profile_lock_release
>> | | | lock_release
>> | | | |
>> | | | |--33.85%-- _raw_spin_unlock
>>
>> Another pair in perf_output_begin/end:
>>
>> __lock_acquire
>> |--23.40%-- perf_output_begin
>> | | __perf_event_overflow
>> | | perf_swevent_overflow
>> | | perf_swevent_add
>> | | perf_swevent_ctx_event
>> | | do_perf_sw_event
>> | | perf_tp_event
>> | | |
>> | | |--55.37%-- ftrace_profile_lock_acquire
>> | | | lock_acquire
>> | | | |
>> | | | |--37.31%-- _raw_spin_lock
>>
>> The problem is not that much the trace recursion itself, as we have a
>> recursion protection already (though it's always wasteful to recurse).
>> But the trace events are outside the lockdep recursion protection, then
>> each lockdep event triggers a lock trace, which will trigger two
>> other lockdep events. Here the recursive lock trace event won't
>> be taken because of the trace recursion, so the recursion stops there
>> but lockdep will still analyse these new events:
>>
>> To sum up, for each lockdep events we have:
>>
>> lock_*()
>> |
>> trace lock_acquire
>> |
>> ----- rcu_read_lock()
>> | |
>> | lock_acquire()
>> | |
>> | trace_lock_acquire() (stopped)
>> | |
>> | lockdep analyze
>> |
>> ----- rcu_read_unlock()
>> |
>> lock_release
>> |
>> trace_lock_release() (stopped)
>> |
>> lockdep analyze
>>
>> And you can repeat the above two times as we have two rcu read side
>> sections when we submit an event.
>>
>> This is fixed in this pacth by using the non-lockdep versions of
>> rcu_read_(un)lock.
>
> Hmmm... Perhaps I should rename __rcu_read_lock() to something more
> meaningful if it is to be used outside of the RCU files. In the
> meantime:
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
Perhaps we can use the existed rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace().
not relate to this patchset, but RCU & lockdep:
We need to remove lockdep from rcu_read_lock_*().
1) rcu_read_lock() is deadlock-immunity,
we get very little benefit from lockdep.
rcu_read_lock()
lock_acquire(read=2,check=1)
* Values for check:
*
* 0: disabled
* 1: simple checks (freeing, held-at-exit-time, etc.)
* 2: full validation
*/
We can check it by other methods.
2) popular distributions and some companies enable lockdep for their kernel.
rcu_read_lock_*() are the most frequent lock in kernel.
lock_acquire() is not fast enough, it is a big function for RCU.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/