Re: [PATCH v5 00/17] Reference count checker and related fixes

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:47:26AM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
> On 4/04/23 21:54, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 03:41:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> Em Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 08:25:41PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
> >>> On 4/04/23 18:58, Ian Rogers wrote:
> >>>> Ping. It would be nice to have this landed or at least the first 10
> >>>> patches that refactor the map API and are the bulk of the
> >>>> lines-of-code changed. Having those landed would make it easier to
> >>>> rebase in the future, but I also think the whole series is ready to
> >>>> go.
> >>>
> >>> I was wondering if the handling of dynamic data like struct map makes
> >>> any sense at present.  Perhaps someone can reassure me.
> >>>
> >>> A struct map can be updated when an MMAP event is processed.  So it
> >>
> >> Yes, it can, and the update is made via a new PERF_RECORD_MMAP, right?
> >>
> >> So:
> >>
> >> 	perf_event__process_mmap()
> >> 	  machine__process_mmap2_event()
> >> 	    map__new() + thread__insert_map(thread, map)
> >> 	    	maps__fixup_overlappings()
> >> 			maps__insert(thread->maps, map);
> >>
> >> Ok, from this point on new samples on ] map->start .. map->end ] will
> >> grab a refcount to this new map in its hist_entry, right?
> >>
> >> When we want to sort by dso we will look at hist_entry->map->dso, etc.
> > 
> > And in 'perf top' we go decaying hist entries, when we delete the
> > hist_entry, drop the reference count to things it holds, that will then
> > be finally deleted when no more hist_entries point to it.
> > 
> >>> seems like anything racing with event processing is already broken, and
> >>> reference counting / locking cannot help - unless there is also
> >>> copy-on-write (which there isn't at present)?
 
> So I checked, and struct map *is* copy-on-write in
> maps__fixup_overlappings(), so that should not be a problem.
 
> >>> For struct maps, referencing it while simultaneously processing
> >>> events seems to make even less sense?

> >> Can you elaborate some more?
 
> Only that the maps are not necessarily stable e.g. the map that you
> need has been replaced in the meantime.

Well, it may be sliced in several or shrunk by new ones overlapping it,
but it if completely disappears, say a new map starts before the one
disappearing and ends after it, then it remains with reference counts if
there are hist_entries (or other data structure) pointing to them,
right?
 
> But upon investigation, the only user at the moment is
> maps__find_ams().  If we kept the removed maps (we used to),
> it might be possible to make maps__find_ams() work correctly
> in any case.

Humm, I think I see what you mean, maps__find_ams() is called when we
are annotating a symbol, not when we're processing a sample, so it may
be the case that at the time of annotation the executable that is being
found (its parsing the target IP of a 'call' assembly instruction) was
replaced, is that the case?

- Arnaldo