Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: x86/smp: adding new trace points
From:   Wojciech Kudla <wk.kernel@gmail.com>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org
References: <4d54953b-f968-63f5-569f-9e09bc0f361c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b638ef03-04c2-94bf-f026-a01691888624@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 12:39:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4d54953b-f968-63f5-569f-9e09bc0f361c@gmail.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

Hi all,

I was trying to trace some IPIs (remote tlb shootdowns in this case) and noticed that:

1) irq_vectors:x86_platform_ipi_entry and irq_vectors:x86_platform_ipi_exit are not hit at all for my case. The backtrace on the receiving CPU:

0xffffffff81079535	flush_tlb_func_common.constprop.10+0x105/0x220 [kernel]
0xffffffff81079681	flush_tlb_func_remote+0x31/0x40 [kernel]
0xffffffff8111f76c	flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x4c/0xf0 [kernel]
0xffffffff81120253	generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x13/0x30 [kernel]
0xffffffff81a030c6	smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x36/0xd0 [kernel]
0xffffffff81a02679	call_function_single_interrupt+0xa9/0xb0 [kernel]

I would expect that we would hit those trace point somewhere around call_function_single_interrupt()


2) there is no equivalent of ipi:ipi_raise for x86. For the following call stack:

0xffffffff81055d10	native_send_call_func_single_ipi+0x0/0x20 [kernel]
0xffffffff8111f86f	generic_exec_single+0x5f/0xc0 [kernel]
0xffffffff8111f9a2	smp_call_function_single+0xd2/0x100 [kernel]
0xffffffff8111fe3c	smp_call_function_many+0x1cc/0x250 [kernel]
0xffffffff8107982c	native_flush_tlb_others+0x3c/0xf0 [kernel]
(...)

I would expect to have a irq_vectors:x86_platform_ipi_raise (or similar) tracepoint.

Are there any reasons my expectations are wrong?
I'd love to submit a patch that addresses these issue but I'd rather get some more context (history maybe) before that.

Thanks,

Wojtek