linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] smp: Add tracepoints for functions called with smp_call

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ6HWG4g+KgqbJR+AsAKGG9vPViJpwXO-8bMSPzMZzYKXD_rWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 06:25:27 -0300
From:   Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <leobras@...hat.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] smp: Add tracepoints for functions called with smp_call_function*()

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:13 AM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/05/23 17:27, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-05-04 at 12:59 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> +TRACE_EVENT(csd_queue_cpu,
> >> +
> >> +    TP_PROTO(const unsigned int cpu,
> >> +             unsigned long callsite,
> >> +             smp_call_func_t func,
> >> +             call_single_data_t *csd),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_ARGS(cpu, callsite, func, csd),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_STRUCT__entry(
> >> +            __field(unsigned int, cpu)
> >> +            __field(void *, callsite)
> >> +            __field(void *, func)
> >> +            __field(void *, csd)
> >> +    ),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_fast_assign(
> >> +            __entry->cpu = cpu;
> >> +            __entry->callsite = (void *)callsite;
> >> +            __entry->func = func;
> >> +            __entry->csd  = csd;
> >> +    ),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_printk("cpu=%u callsite=%pS func=%pS csd=%p",
> >> +              __entry->cpu, __entry->callsite, __entry->func, __entry->csd)
> >> +);
> >
> > This is for the caller side, right?
> >
>
> Yep, see usage lower down.
>
> >> +
> >> +DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(csd_function,
> >> +
> >> +    TP_PROTO(smp_call_func_t func, call_single_data_t *csd),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_ARGS(func, csd),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_STRUCT__entry(
> >> +            __field(void *, func)
> >> +            __field(void *, csd)
> >> +    ),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_fast_assign(
> >> +            __entry->func   = func;
> >> +            __entry->csd    = csd;
> >> +    ),
> >> +
> >> +    TP_printk("func=%pS csd=%p", __entry->func, __entry->csd)
> >> +);
> >> +
> >> +DEFINE_EVENT(csd_function, csd_function_entry,
> >> +    TP_PROTO(smp_call_func_t func, call_single_data_t *csd),
> >> +    TP_ARGS(func, csd)
> >> +);
> >> +
> >> +DEFINE_EVENT(csd_function, csd_function_exit,
> >> +    TP_PROTO(smp_call_func_t func, call_single_data_t *csd),
> >> +    TP_ARGS(func, csd)
> >> +);
> >
> > Oh, this is what event_class is for. Thanks for the example :)
> >
> >> +
> >> +#endif /* _TRACE_SMP_H */
> >> +
> >> +/* This part must be outside protection */
> >> +#include <trace/define_trace.h>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> >> index ab3e5dad6cfe9..7d28db303e9bc 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> >> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@
> >>  #include <linux/jump_label.h>
> >>
> >>  #include <trace/events/ipi.h>
> >> +#define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> >> +#include <trace/events/smp.h>
> >> +#undef CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> >>
> >>  #include "smpboot.h"
> >>  #include "sched/smp.h"
> >> @@ -121,6 +124,14 @@ send_call_function_ipi_mask(struct cpumask *mask)
> >>      arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(mask);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +static __always_inline void
> >> +csd_do_func(smp_call_func_t func, void *info, call_single_data_t *csd)
> >> +{
> >> +    trace_csd_function_entry(func, csd);
> >> +    func(info);
> >> +    trace_csd_function_exit(func, csd);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > Good one, a helper to avoid calling those traces everywhere.
> >
> > Honest question:
> > Since info == csd->info and func == csd->func, we could just pass csd, right?
> > I suppose the suggestion on the 3-argument version is to use the values already
> > fetched from memory instead of fetching them again. Is that correct?
> >
>
> There's also the special case of CSD_TYPE_TTWU where there is no csd->func,
> instead we have an implicit func mapping to sched_ttwu_pending). I think
> it's preferable to directly feed the right things to the TP than to
> duplicate the "decoding" logic against the *csd passed as TP argument.
>

Quite interesting, thank you for sharing!

I sent a v3 which got a warning from the kernel testing robot. I
already solved the warning, so please provide feedback on the rest of
the patch.

About the warning:
It is an alignment error between 'struct __call_single_data' from
generic_exec_single() and 'call_single_data_t' from csd_do_func(): the
first is 8-byte aligned, and the second is 32-byte aligned according
to the typedef.

My first idea was to convert my patches' parameters from
call_single_data_t to 'struct __call_single_data', but then I found
out the 'struct' option allows splitting csd between 2 cachelines,
which is usually bad.
Then I decided to send a patchset [1] fixing generic_exec_single() and
its callers. If it's accepted, the warning will go away, and v3 will
merge cleanly.

If not, I will send a v4 changing the parameters.

Thanks for reviewing,
Leo


1. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230511085836.579679-1-leobras@redhat.com