Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220208184208.79303-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:32:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgq+jxu6FJuKhZkprn7dO4DiG5pDjmYZzneQYTfKOM85g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from
 lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:09 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > Eventually I'm mostly interested in the contended locks only and I
> > want to reduce the overhead in the fast path.  By moving that, it'd be
> > easy to track contended locks with timing by using two tracepoints.
>
> So why not put in two new tracepoints and call it a day?
>
> Why muck about with all that lockdep stuff just to preserve the name
> (and in the process continue to blow up data structures etc..). This
> leaves distros in a bind, will they enable this config and provide
> tracepoints while bloating the data structures and destroying things
> like lockref (which relies on sizeof(spinlock_t)), or not provide this
> at all.

If it's only lockref, is it possible to change it to use arch_spinlock_t
so that it can remain in 4 bytes?  It'd be really nice if we can keep
spin lock size, but it'd be easier to carry the name with it for
analysis IMHO.

Thanks,
Namhyung