Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:38:20 -0700
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Chinwen Chang <chinwen.chang@...iatek.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mmap_lock: add tracepoints around lock acquisition

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 7:00 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On 10/20/20 8:47 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > The goal of these tracepoints is to be able to debug lock contention
> > issues. This lock is acquired on most (all?) mmap / munmap / page fault
> > operations, so a multi-threaded process which does a lot of these can
> > experience significant contention.
> >
> > We trace just before we start acquisition, when the acquisition returns
> > (whether it succeeded or not), and when the lock is released (or
> > downgraded). The events are broken out by lock type (read / write).
> >
> > The events are also broken out by memcg path. For container-based
> > workloads, users often think of several processes in a memcg as a single
> > logical "task", so collecting statistics at this level is useful.
> >
> > The end goal is to get latency information. This isn't directly included
> > in the trace events. Instead, users are expected to compute the time
> > between "start locking" and "acquire returned", using e.g. synthetic
> > events or BPF. The benefit we get from this is simpler code.
> >
> > Because we use tracepoint_enabled() to decide whether or not to trace,
> > this patch has effectively no overhead unless tracepoints are enabled at
> > runtime. If tracepoints are enabled, there is a performance impact, but
> > how much depends on exactly what e.g. the BPF program does.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
> > Acked-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
>
> All seem fine to me, except I started to wonder..
>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > +
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[MAX_FILTER_STR_VAL], trace_memcg_path);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Write the given mm_struct's memcg path to a percpu buffer, and return a
> > + * pointer to it. If the path cannot be determined, the buffer will contain the
> > + * empty string.
> > + *
> > + * Note: buffers are allocated per-cpu to avoid locking, so preemption must be
> > + * disabled by the caller before calling us, and re-enabled only after the
> > + * caller is done with the pointer.
>
> Is this enough? What if we fill the buffer and then an interrupt comes and the
> handler calls here again? We overwrite the buffer and potentially report a wrong
> cgroup after the execution resumes?
> If nothing worse can happen (are interrupts disabled while the ftrace code is
> copying from the buffer?), then it's probably ok?

I think you're right, get_cpu()/put_cpu() only deals with preemption,
not interrupts.

I'm somewhat sure this code can be called in interrupt context, so I
don't think we can use locks to prevent this situation. I think it
works like this: say we acquire the lock, an interrupt happens, and
then we try to acquire again on the same CPU; we can't sleep, so we're
stuck.

I think we can't kmalloc here (instead of a percpu buffer) either,
since I would guess that kmalloc may also acquire mmap_lock itself?

Is adding local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() in addition to
get_cpu()/put_cpu() sufficient?

>
> > + */
> > +static const char *get_mm_memcg_path(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +     struct mem_cgroup *memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(mm);
> > +
> > +     if (memcg != NULL && likely(memcg->css.cgroup != NULL)) {
> > +             char *buf = this_cpu_ptr(trace_memcg_path);
> > +
> > +             cgroup_path(memcg->css.cgroup, buf, MAX_FILTER_STR_VAL);
> > +             return buf;
> > +     }
> > +     return "";
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(type, mm, ...)                                   \
> > +     do {                                                                   \
> > +             get_cpu();                                                     \
> > +             trace_mmap_lock_##type(mm, get_mm_memcg_path(mm),              \
> > +                                    ##__VA_ARGS__);                         \
> > +             put_cpu();                                                     \
> > +     } while (0)
> > +
> > +#else /* !CONFIG_MEMCG */
> > +
> > +#define TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(type, mm, ...)                                   \
> > +     trace_mmap_lock_##type(mm, "", ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > +
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Trace calls must be in a separate file, as otherwise there's a circular
> > + * dependency between linux/mmap_lock.h and trace/events/mmap_lock.h.
> > + */
> > +
> > +void __mmap_lock_do_trace_start_locking(struct mm_struct *mm, bool write)
> > +{
> > +     TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(start_locking, mm, write);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmap_lock_do_trace_start_locking);
> > +
> > +void __mmap_lock_do_trace_acquire_returned(struct mm_struct *mm, bool write,
> > +                                        bool success)
> > +{
> > +     TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(acquire_returned, mm, write, success);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmap_lock_do_trace_acquire_returned);
> > +
> > +void __mmap_lock_do_trace_released(struct mm_struct *mm, bool write)
> > +{
> > +     TRACE_MMAP_LOCK_EVENT(released, mm, write);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mmap_lock_do_trace_released);
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists