Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:38:34 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/14] perf/hw_breakpoint: Reduce contention with
 large number of tasks
Message-ID: <Ywx7CmbG+f+wg04z@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220704150514.48816-1-elver@google.com>
 <20220704150514.48816-12-elver@google.com>
 <YvznKYgRKjDRSMkT@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CANpmjNN1vv9oDpm1_c99tQKgWVVtXza++u1xcBVeb5mhx5eUHw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNN1vv9oDpm1_c99tQKgWVVtXza++u1xcBVeb5mhx5eUHw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 03:14:54PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 15:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 05:05:11PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > +static bool bp_constraints_is_locked(struct perf_event *bp)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct mutex *tsk_mtx = get_task_bps_mutex(bp);
> > > +
> > > +     return percpu_is_write_locked(&bp_cpuinfo_sem) ||
> > > +            (tsk_mtx ? mutex_is_locked(tsk_mtx) :
> > > +                       percpu_is_read_locked(&bp_cpuinfo_sem));
> > > +}
> >
> > > @@ -426,18 +521,28 @@ static int modify_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp, u64 old_type, u64 new_type)
> > >   */
> > >  int dbg_reserve_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp)
> > >  {
> > > -     if (mutex_is_locked(&nr_bp_mutex))
> > > +     int ret;
> > > +
> > > +     if (bp_constraints_is_locked(bp))
> > >               return -1;
> > >
> > > -     return __reserve_bp_slot(bp, bp->attr.bp_type);
> > > +     /* Locks aren't held; disable lockdep assert checking. */
> > > +     lockdep_off();
> > > +     ret = __reserve_bp_slot(bp, bp->attr.bp_type);
> > > +     lockdep_on();
> > > +
> > > +     return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  int dbg_release_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp)
> > >  {
> > > -     if (mutex_is_locked(&nr_bp_mutex))
> > > +     if (bp_constraints_is_locked(bp))
> > >               return -1;
> > >
> > > +     /* Locks aren't held; disable lockdep assert checking. */
> > > +     lockdep_off();
> > >       __release_bp_slot(bp, bp->attr.bp_type);
> > > +     lockdep_on();
> > >
> > >       return 0;
> > >  }
> >
> > Urggghhhh... this is horrible crap. That is, the current code is that
> > and this makes it worse :/
> 
> Heh, yes and when I looked at it I really wanted to see if it can
> change. But from what I can tell, when the kernel debugger is being
> attached, the kernel does stop everything it does and we need the
> horrible thing above to not deadlock. And these dbg_ functions are not
> normally used, so I decided to leave it as-is. Suggestions?

What context is this ran in? NMI should already have lockdep disabled.