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;
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 10:33:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, williams@redhat.com,
        daniel@bristot.me, "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] preempt_tracer: Disable IRQ while starting/stopping
 due to a preempt_counter change
Message-ID: <20190529083357.GF2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1559051152.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <f2ca7336162b6dc45f413cfe4e0056e6aa32e7ed.1559051152.git.bristot@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f2ca7336162b6dc45f413cfe4e0056e6aa32e7ed.1559051152.git.bristot@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:16:23PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> The preempt_disable/enable tracepoint only traces in the disable <-> enable
> case, which is correct. But think about this case:
> 
> ---------------------------- %< ------------------------------
> 	THREAD					IRQ
> 	   |					 |
> preempt_disable() {
>     __preempt_count_add(1)
> 	------->	    smp_apic_timer_interrupt() {
> 				preempt_disable()
> 				    do not trace (preempt count >= 1)
> 				    ....
> 				preempt_enable()
> 				    do not trace (preempt count >= 1)
> 			    }
>     trace_preempt_disable();
> }
> ---------------------------- >% ------------------------------
> 
> The tracepoint will be skipped.

.... for the IRQ. But IRQs are not preemptible anyway, so what the
problem?

> To avoid skipping the trace, the change in the counter should be "atomic"
> with the start/stop, w.r.t the interrupts.
> 
> Disable interrupts while the adding/starting stopping/subtracting.

> +static inline void preempt_add_start_latency(int val)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> +	__preempt_count_add(val);
> +	preempt_latency_start(val);
> +	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

> +static inline void preempt_sub_stop_latency(int val)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> +	preempt_latency_stop(val);
> +	__preempt_count_sub(val);
> +	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

That is hideously expensive :/