Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:48:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        He Kuang <hekuang@huawei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] perf core: Allow setting up max frame stack depth
 via sysctl
Message-ID: <20160421104858.GH3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160420224730.GX3677@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160420224730.GX3677@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2095
Lines: 71

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:47:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> The default remains 127, which is good for most cases, and not even hit
> most of the time, but then for some cases, as reported by Brendan, 1024+
> deep frames are appearing on the radar for things like groovy, ruby.

yea gawds ;-)


> index 343c22f5e867..1390747b2195 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/callchain.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/callchain.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,14 @@ struct callchain_cpus_entries {
>  	struct perf_callchain_entry	*cpu_entries[0];
>  };
>  
> +int sysctl_perf_event_max_stack __read_mostly = PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH;
> +
> +static size_t perf_callchain_entry__sizeof(void)
> +{
> +	return sizeof(struct perf_callchain_entry) +
> +	       sizeof(__u64) * sysctl_perf_event_max_stack;
> +}
> +
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, callchain_recursion[PERF_NR_CONTEXTS]);
>  static atomic_t nr_callchain_events;
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(callchain_mutex);
> @@ -73,7 +81,7 @@ static int alloc_callchain_buffers(void)
>  	if (!entries)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	size = sizeof(struct perf_callchain_entry) * PERF_NR_CONTEXTS;
> +	size = perf_callchain_entry__sizeof() * PERF_NR_CONTEXTS;
>  
>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		entries->cpu_entries[cpu] = kmalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL,

And this alloc _will_ fail if you put in a decent sized value..

Should we put in a dmesg WARN if this alloc fails and
perf_event_max_stack is 'large' ?

> @@ -215,3 +223,25 @@ exit_put:
>  
>  	return entry;
>  }
> +
> +int perf_event_max_stack_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> +				 void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +	int new_value = sysctl_perf_event_max_stack, ret;
> +	struct ctl_table new_table = *table;
> +
> +	new_table.data = &new_value;

cute :-)

> +	ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(&new_table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> +	if (ret || !write)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> +	if (atomic_read(&nr_callchain_events))
> +		ret = -EBUSY;
> +	else
> +		sysctl_perf_event_max_stack = new_value;
> +	
> +	mutex_unlock(&callchain_mutex);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}