linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1325267700.157591.1647535385417.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 12:43:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow
 path

----- On Mar 17, 2022, at 12:10 PM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:45:28 -0400 (EDT)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> 
>> > *sem, bool reader)
>> > 		schedule();
>> > 	}
>> > 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> > +	trace_contention_end(sem, 0);
>> 
>> So for the reader-write locks, and percpu rwlocks, the "trace contention end"
>> will always
>> have ret=0. Likewise for qspinlock, qrwlock, and rtlock. It seems to be a waste
>> of trace
>> buffer space to always have space for a return value that is always 0.
>> 
>> Sorry if I missed prior dicussions of that topic, but why introduce this single
>> "trace contention begin/end" muxer tracepoint with flags rather than
>> per-locking-type
>> tracepoint ? The per-locking-type tracepoint could be tuned to only have the
>> fields
>> that are needed for each locking type.
> 
> per-locking-type tracepoint will also add a bigger footprint.

If you are talking about code and data size footprint in the kernel, yes, we agree
there.

> 
> One extra byte is not an issue.

The implementation uses a 32-bit integer.

But given that this only traces contention, it's probably not as important to
shrink the event size as if it would be for tracing every uncontended lock/unlock.

> This is just the tracepoints. You can still
> attach your own specific LTTng trace events that ignores the zero
> parameter, and can multiplex into specific types of trace events on your
> end.

Indeed, I could, as I do for system call entry/exit tracing. But I suspect it would
not be worth it for contended locks, because I don't expect those events to be frequent
enough in the trace to justify the added code/data footprint, as you pointed out.

> 
> I prefer the current approach as it keeps the tracing footprint down.

Likewise. I just wanted to make sure this was done knowing the trace buffer vs kernel
code/data overhead trade-off.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> -- Steve

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com