| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:11:44 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:04 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:04:10PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > @@ -171,9 +172,12 @@ bool __sched __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool try)
> > if (try)
> > return false;
> >
> > + trace_contention_begin(sem, _RET_IP_,
> > + LCB_F_READ | LCB_F_PERCPU | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> That is a bit unwieldy, isn't it ?
>
> > preempt_enable();
> > percpu_rwsem_wait(sem, /* .reader = */ true);
> > preempt_disable();
> > + trace_contention_end(sem);
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> > @@ -224,8 +228,13 @@ void __sched percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> > * Try set sem->block; this provides writer-writer exclusion.
> > * Having sem->block set makes new readers block.
> > */
> > - if (!__percpu_down_write_trylock(sem))
> > + if (!__percpu_down_write_trylock(sem)) {
> > + unsigned int flags = LCB_F_WRITE | LCB_F_PERCPU | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> > +
> > + trace_contention_begin(sem, _RET_IP_, flags);
> > percpu_rwsem_wait(sem, /* .reader = */ false);
> > + trace_contention_end(sem);
> > + }
> >
> > /* smp_mb() implied by __percpu_down_write_trylock() on success -- D matches A */
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to stick all that inside percpu_rwsem_wait() and
> have it only once? You can even re-frob the wait loop such that the
> tracepoint can use current->__state or something.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> index c9fdae94e098..ca01f8ff88e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> @@ -154,13 +154,16 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool reader)
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&sem->waiters.lock);
>
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + trace_contention_begin(sem, _RET_IP_, LCB_F_PERCPU | LCB_F_WRITE*!reader);
> while (wait) {
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (!smp_load_acquire(&wq_entry.private))
> break;
> schedule();
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> + trace_contention_end(sem);
> }
Looks good. I'll make similar changes in other places too.
One general concern of moving inside is that it makes the _RET_IP_
useless. If we can pass the caller ip to the slowpath function,
it'd be fine.
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> > index 8555c4efe97c..e49f5d2a232b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
> > #include <linux/sched/wake_q.h>
> > #include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
> >
> > +#include <trace/events/lock.h>
> > +
> > #include "rtmutex_common.h"
> >
> > #ifndef WW_RT
> > @@ -1652,10 +1654,16 @@ static int __sched rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
> > static __always_inline int __rt_mutex_lock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
> > unsigned int state)
> > {
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, NULL, current)))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - return rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, NULL, state);
> > + trace_contention_begin(lock, _RET_IP_, LCB_F_RT | state);
> > + ret = rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, NULL, state);
> > + trace_contention_end(lock);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > }
> > #endif /* RT_MUTEX_BUILD_MUTEX */
> >
> > @@ -1718,9 +1726,11 @@ static __always_inline void __sched rtlock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + trace_contention_begin(lock, _RET_IP_, LCB_F_RT | TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > rtlock_slowlock_locked(lock);
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > + trace_contention_end(lock);
> > }
>
> Same, if you do it one level in, you can have the tracepoint itself look
> at current->__state. Also, you seem to have forgotten to trace the
> return value. Now you can't tell if the lock was acquired, or was denied
> (ww_mutex) or we were interrupted.
Right, thanks for pointing that out. Will add that.
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> index 8555c4efe97c..18b9f4bf6f34 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -1579,6 +1579,8 @@ static int __sched __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
>
> set_current_state(state);
>
> + trace_contention_begin(lock, _RET_IP_, LCB_F_RT);
> +
> ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, current, ww_ctx, chwalk);
> if (likely(!ret))
> ret = rt_mutex_slowlock_block(lock, ww_ctx, state, NULL, waiter);
> @@ -1601,6 +1603,9 @@ static int __sched __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
> * unconditionally. We might have to fix that up.
> */
> fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
> +
> + trace_contention_end(lock, ret);
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -1683,6 +1688,8 @@ static void __sched rtlock_slowlock_locked(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
> /* Save current state and set state to TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT */
> current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state();
>
> + trace_contention_begin(lock, _RET_IP_, LCB_F_RT);
> +
> task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, &waiter, current, NULL, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK);
>
> for (;;) {
> @@ -1703,6 +1710,8 @@ static void __sched rtlock_slowlock_locked(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
> set_current_state(TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
> }
>
> + trace_contention_end(lock, 0);
> +
> /* Restore the task state */
> current_restore_rtlock_saved_state();
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists