Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
References: <20190524165346.26373-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190524171939.GA9120@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <d47289ad-0255-5ce4-e21a-c4bdebe65fe9@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 13:28:47 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190524171939.GA9120@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/24/19 1:19 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:53:46PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The kernel test robot has reported that the use of __this_cpu_add()
>> causes bug messages like:
>>
>>   BUG: using __this_cpu_add() in preemptible [00000000] code: ...
>>
>> This is only an issue on preempt kernel where preemption can happen in
>> the middle of a percpu operation. We are still using __this_cpu_*() for
>> !preempt kernel to avoid additional overhead in case CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT
>> is set.
>>
>>  v2: Simplify the condition to just preempt or !preempt.
>>
>> Fixes: a8654596f0371 ("locking/rwsem: Enable lock event counting")
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/locking/lock_events.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
>> index feb1acc54611..05f34068ec06 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
>> @@ -30,13 +30,32 @@ enum lock_events {
>>   */
>>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, lockevents[lockevent_num]);
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * The purpose of the lock event counting subsystem is to provide a low
>> + * overhead way to record the number of specific locking events by using
>> + * percpu counters. It is the percpu sum that matters, not specifically
>> + * how many of them happens in each cpu.
>> + *
>> + * In !preempt kernel, we can just use __this_cpu_*() as preemption
>> + * won't happen in the middle of the percpu operation. In preempt kernel,
>> + * preemption happens in the middle of the percpu operation may produce
>> + * incorrect result.
>> + */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>> +#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		this_cpu_inc(x)
>> +#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	this_cpu_add(x, v)
>> +#else
>> +#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		__this_cpu_inc(x)
>> +#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	__this_cpu_add(x, v)
> Are you sure this works wrt IRQs? For example, if I take an interrupt when
> trying to update the counter, and then the irq handler takes a qspinlock
> which in turn tries to update the counter. Would I lose an update in that
> scenario?
>
> Will

Good point! But this will be an issue even if we use the non-underscore
version as I don't think it will disable interrupt. Also it is only a
problem if the percpu operation is more than 1 instruction. It is a
single instruction for x86. Other architectures may require more than 1
instruction. In those cases, we may lose count, but it is still better
than getting the count from one CPU and put it into another CPU.

Cheers,
Longman