[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240710095520.e6cbfa6efac9bd79f248b111@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:55:20 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, mingo@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, oleg@...hat.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, clm@...a.com, paulmck@...nel.org, bpf
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] perf/uprobe: Optimize uprobes
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:03:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 05:25:14PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > Ramping this up to 16 threads shows that mmap_rwsem is getting more
> > costly, up to 45% of CPU. SRCU is also growing a bit slower to 19% of
> > CPU. Is this expected? (I'm not familiar with the implementation
> > details)
>
> SRCU getting more expensive is a bit unexpected, it's just a per-cpu
> inc/dec and a full barrier.
>
> > P.S. Would you be able to rebase your patches on top of latest
> > probes/for-next, which include Jiri's sys_uretprobe changes. Right now
> > uretprobe benchmarks are quite unrepresentative because of that.
>
> What branch is that? kernel/events/ stuff usually goes through tip, no?
I'm handling uprobe patches in linux-trace tree, because it's a kind of
probes in the kernel. Actually that is not clarified that the uprobe is
handled by which tree. I had asked to handle kprobes in linux-trace, but
uprobes might not be clear. Is that OK for you to handle uprobes on
linux-trace?
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists