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: [RFC PATCH 3/8] perf: Init/fini PMU specific data
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     kan.liang@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        eranian@google.com, vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com
References: <1574954071-6321-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <1574954071-6321-3-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20191202124055.GC2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191202145957.GM84886@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <79138ea7-2249-b7e0-3541-8569e593c6e8@linux.intel.com>
 <20191202164313.GM2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Corp.
Message-ID: <b55f0797-72d3-7638-7494-3dc9f1583ba8@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 20:42:18 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191202164313.GM2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 02.12.2019 19:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 07:38:00PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>
>> On 02.12.2019 17:59, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is atricous crap. Also it is completely broken for -RT.
>>>
>>> Well can you please suggest how you would implement it instead?
>>
>> FWIW,
>> An alternative could probably be to make task_ctx_data allocations
>> on the nearest context switch in, and obvious drawback is slowdown on
>> this critical path, but it could be amortized by static branches.
> 
> Context switch is under a raw_spinlock_t too.

Indeed, under rq->lock (some of runqueue locks, I suppose), but 
as far locking order is not violated a thread shouldn't deadlock.
On the other side it could probably hurt concurrency and 
it is more preferable to have task_ctx_data memory pre-allocated 
by the time it is assigned on a context switch in.

What if we would create some pool of preallocated task_ctx_data 
objects on the first system wide perf_event_open() syscall
and after that:
- already existing threads would take task_ctx_data objects from
  the pool without additional locking on the nearest
  context switch in;
- newly created threads would allocate task_ctx_data themselves,
  atomically checking some global state, possibly at PMU object
- task_ctx_data deallocation would be performed by threads
  themselves, at some safe points in time;

Thanks,
Alexey