[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100421012651.GC7120@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:26:53 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: Fix state machine to recognize lock sequence
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 05:44:06PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> I'm developing the model to recognize the correct sequence of lock events.
> Previous state machine of perf lock was really broken.
> This patch improves it a little.
>
> This patch prepares the array of state machine represents lock sequence for each threads.
> These state machines represent one of these sequence:
>
> 1) acquire -> acquired -> release
> 2) acquire -> contended -> acquired -> release
> 3) acquire (w/ try) -> release
> 4) acquire (w/ read) -> release
>
> The case of 4) is a little special.
> Double acquire of read lock is allowed, so state machine of sequence
> counts read lock number, and permit double acquire and release.
>
> But, things are not so simple. Something of my model is still wrong.
> I counted the number of lock instances with bad sequence,
> and ratio is like this (case of tracing whoami): bad:122, total:1956
I just gave your patch a try and it's worse: almost every sequences
were reported bad (it wasn't working either before your patch :)
This is not the fault of your patch though. Actually your patch seems to
be a nice improvement.
In fact I just found two things:
1) We are working on tasks in pid basis. We should work on a task by using
its tid.
In fact we are processing the sequences of several threads in a process as
if we were dealing with a single task.
If A and B are two threads belonging to a same process, and if we have:
A: acquire lock 1, release lock 1
B: acquire lock 2, release lock 2
...then we are dealing with a random mess of sequences:
AB: acquire lock 1, acquire lock 2, release lock 1, and any kind of random
things like this.
2) I can't get lock_acquired traces. Not sure why yet...
>
> There is another new bad thing.
> The size of array of state machine is equal to max depth lockdep defines.
> If perf lock record tries to record lock events of the programs with lots of
> system call like "perf bench sched messaging", the array will be exhausted :(
Yeah, I suggest you use a list for that in fact. The max lockdep depth may
change in the future, or become variable, so we can't relay on that.
But that's still a cool improvement.
I'm queuing this patch.
Thanks.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists