linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] tracing/perf: Fix lock events recursions in the fast path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B6B84A1.60805@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:38:25 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] tracing/perf: Fix lock events recursions in the
 fast path

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@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/