Re: [RFC v4 3/4] irqflags: Avoid unnecessary calls to trace_ if you can

From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Tue Apr 24 2018 - 12:01:42 EST

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:22:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
>> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I'm inclined to explicitly declare the tracepoints with their given
>> > synchronization method. Tracepoint probe callback functions for currently
>> > existing tracepoints expect to have preemption disabled when invoked.
>> > This assumption will not be true anymore for srcu-tracepoints.
>> Actually, why not have a flag attached to the tracepoint_func that
>> states if it expects preemption to be enabled or not? If a
>> trace_##event##_srcu() is called, then simply disable preemption before
>> calling the callbacks for it. That way if a callback is fine for use
>> with srcu, then it would require calling
>> register_trace_##event##_may_sleep();
>> Then if someone uses this on a tracepoint where preemption is disabled,
>> we simply do not call it.
> One more stupid question... If we are having to trace so much stuff
> in the idle loop, are we perhaps grossly overstating the extent of that
> "idle" loop? For being called "idle", this code seems quite busy!

The performance hit I am observing is when running a heavy workload,
like hackbench or something like that. That's what I am trying to
By the way is there any limitation on using SRCU too early during
boot? I backported Mathieu's srcu tracepoint patches but the kernel
hangs pretty early in the boot. I register lockdep probes in
start_kernel. I am hoping that's not why.

I could also have just screwed up the backporting... may be for my
testing, I will just replace the rcu API with the srcu instead of all
of Mathieu's new TRACE_EVENT macros for SRCU, since all I am trying to
do right now is measure the performance of my patches with SRCU.


- Joel