Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mmap_lock: add tracepoints around lock acquisition

From: Vlastimil Babka
Date: Fri Oct 23 2020 - 10:00:03 EST


On 10/20/20 8:47 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
The goal of these tracepoints is to be able to debug lock contention
issues. This lock is acquired on most (all?) mmap / munmap / page fault
operations, so a multi-threaded process which does a lot of these can
experience significant contention.

We trace just before we start acquisition, when the acquisition returns
(whether it succeeded or not), and when the lock is released (or
downgraded). The events are broken out by lock type (read / write).

The events are also broken out by memcg path. For container-based
workloads, users often think of several processes in a memcg as a single
logical "task", so collecting statistics at this level is useful.

The end goal is to get latency information. This isn't directly included
in the trace events. Instead, users are expected to compute the time
between "start locking" and "acquire returned", using e.g. synthetic
events or BPF. The benefit we get from this is simpler code.

Because we use tracepoint_enabled() to decide whether or not to trace,
this patch has effectively no overhead unless tracepoints are enabled at
runtime. If tracepoints are enabled, there is a performance impact, but
how much depends on exactly what e.g. the BPF program does.

Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>

All seem fine to me, except I started to wonder..

+
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
+
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[MAX_FILTER_STR_VAL], trace_memcg_path);
+
+/*
+ * Write the given mm_struct's memcg path to a percpu buffer, and return a
+ * pointer to it. If the path cannot be determined, the buffer will contain the
+ * empty string.
+ *
+ * Note: buffers are allocated per-cpu to avoid locking, so preemption must be
+ * disabled by the caller before calling us, and re-enabled only after the
+ * caller is done with the pointer.

Is this enough? What if we fill the buffer and then an interrupt comes and the handler calls here again? We overwrite the buffer and potentially report a wrong cgroup after the execution resumes?
If nothing worse can happen (are interrupts disabled while the ftrace code is copying from the buffer?), then it's probably ok?

+ */
+static const char *get_mm_memcg_path(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(mm);
+
+ if (memcg != NULL && likely(memcg->css.cgroup != NULL)) {
+ char *buf = this_cpu_ptr(trace_memcg_path);
+
+ cgroup_path(memcg->css.cgroup, buf, MAX_FILTER_STR_VAL);
+ return buf;
+ }
+ return "";
+}
+
+#define TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(type, mm, ...) \
+ do { \
+ get_cpu(); \
+ trace_mmap_lock_##type(mm, get_mm_memcg_path(mm), \
+ ##__VA_ARGS__); \
+ put_cpu(); \
+ } while (0)
+
+#else /* !CONFIG_MEMCG */
+
+#define TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(type, mm, ...) \
+ trace_mmap_lock_##type(mm, "", ##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
+
+/*
+ * Trace calls must be in a separate file, as otherwise there's a circular
+ * dependency between linux/mmap_lock.h and trace/events/mmap_lock.h.
+ */
+
+void __mmap_lock_do_trace_start_locking(struct mm_struct *mm, bool write)
+{
+ TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(start_locking, mm, write);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmap_lock_do_trace_start_locking);
+
+void __mmap_lock_do_trace_acquire_returned(struct mm_struct *mm, bool write,
+ bool success)
+{
+ TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(acquire_returned, mm, write, success);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmap_lock_do_trace_acquire_returned);
+
+void __mmap_lock_do_trace_released(struct mm_struct *mm, bool write)
+{
+ TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(released, mm, write);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmap_lock_do_trace_released);