[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZtHH6JcfNUBAQAen@x1>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:23:52 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock contention: Fix spinlock and rwlock accounting
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:29:53PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> The spinlock and rwlock use a single-element per-cpu array to track
> current locks due to performance reason. But this means the key is
> always available and it cannot simply account lock stats in the array
> because some of them are invalid.
>
> In fact, the contention_end() program in the BPF invalidates the entry
> by setting the 'lock' value to 0 instead of deleting the entry for the
> hashmap. So it should skip entries with the lock value of 0 in the
> account_end_timestamp().
Thanks, applied to perf-tools-next,
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists