Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Add __always_inline annotation to __down_read_common()

[John Stultz]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 12:30 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 06:22:14PM +0200, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 1:19 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:59:05AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > Apparently despite it being marked inline, the compiler
> > > > may not inline __down_read_common() which makes it difficult
> > > > to identify the cause of lock contention, as the blocked
> > > > function will always be listed as __down_read_common().
> > > >
> > > > So this patch adds __always_inline annotation to the
> > > > function to force it to be inlines so the calling function
> > > > will be listed.
> > >
> > > I'm a wee bit confused; what are you looking at? Wchan?
> >
> > Apologies! Yes, traceevent data via wchan, sorry I didn't make that clear.
>
> No worries; good addition to the v3 Changelog ;-)
>
> > > What is stopping
> > > the compiler from now handing you
> > > __down_read{,_interruptible,_killable}() instead? Is that fine?
> >
> > No, we want to make the blocked calling function, rather than the
> > locking functions, visible in the tracepoints captured. That said, the
> > other __down_read* functions seem to be properly inlined in practice
> > (Waiman's theory as to why sounds convincing to me).
>
> Right, but we should not rely on the compiler heuristics for correctness
> :-)
>
> > If you'd like I can add those as well to be always_inline, as well so
> > it's more consistent?
>
> Yes please. I'm not sure I care much about the whole 'inline __sched' vs
> '__always_inline' thing, but I do feel it should all be consistently
> applied.

Sounds good. I'll respin with this.

Thanks so much for the review!
-john