[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADYN=9+-z=_5Gn9hJcGi8UwbNxS2jK+OXe5DE0pGxscuZA_8tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:43:12 +0100
From: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 10:54, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Anders, Steve,
>
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:29:03PM +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> > When running in qemu on an kernel built with allmodconfig and debug
> > options (in particular kcov and ubsan) enabled, ftrace_replace_code
> > function call take minutes. The ftrace selftest calls
> > ftrace_replace_code to look >40000 through
> > ftrace_make_call/ftrace_make_nop, and these end up calling
> > __aarch64_insn_write/aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync.
> >
> > Microseconds add up because this is called in a loop for each dyn_ftrace
> > record, and this triggers the softlockup watchdog unless we let it sleep
> > occasionally.
> >
> > Rework so that we call cond_resched() if !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count().
> >
> > Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index c375e33239f7..7080eb464983 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > @@ -2419,11 +2419,19 @@ void __weak ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
> > {
> > struct dyn_ftrace *rec;
> > struct ftrace_page *pg;
> > + bool schedulable;
> > int failed;
> >
> > if (unlikely(ftrace_disabled))
> > return;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Some archs calls this function with interrupts or preemption
> > + * disabled. However, for other archs that can preempt, this can cause
> > + * an tremendous unneeded latency.
> > + */
> > + schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();
>
> Is there a reason not to use preemptible() here?
As I understand it preemptible() is defined to 0 if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled.
Thats no good right ?
Cheers,
Anders
Powered by blists - more mailing lists