Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85712-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240228053335.312776-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <Zd8lkcb5irCOY4-m@x1>
 <CAM9d7cicRtxCvMWu4pk6kdZAqT2pt3erpzL4_Jdt1pKLLYoFgQ@mail.gmail.com> <Zd-UmcqV0mbrKnd0@x1>
In-Reply-To: <Zd-UmcqV0mbrKnd0@x1>
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:19:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cg-M_8V0O2rv_gx+1u=axpRmCp4XcBkkqsiGmDgeU2xZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf lock contention: Account contending locks too
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:16=E2=80=AFPM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:01:55PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 4:22=E2=80=AFAM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 09:33:35PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > Currently it accounts the contention using delta between timestamps=
 in
> > > > lock:contention_begin and lock:contention_end tracepoints.  But it =
means
> > > > the lock should see the both events during the monitoring period.
> > > >
> > > > Actually there are 4 cases that happen with the monitoring:
> > > >
> > > >                 monitoring period
> > > >             /                       \
> > > >             |                       |
> > > >  1:  B------+-----------------------+--------E
> > > >  2:    B----+-------------E         |
> > > >  3:         |           B-----------+----E
> > > >  4:         |     B-------------E   |
> > > >             |                       |
> > > >             t0                      t1
> > > >
> > > > where B and E mean contention BEGIN and END, respectively.  So it o=
nly
> > > > accounts the case 4 for now.  It seems there's no way to handle the=
 case
> > > > 1.  The case 2 might be handled if it saved the timestamp (t0), but=
 it
> > > > lacks the information from the B notably the flags which shows the =
lock
> > > > types.  Also it could be a nested lock which it currently ignores. =
 So
> > > > I think we should ignore the case 2.
> > >
> > > Perhaps have a separate output listing locks that were found to be wi=
th
> > > at least tE - t0 time, with perhaps a backtrace at that END time?
> >
> > Do you mean long contentions in case 3?  I'm not sure what do
> > you mean by tE, but they started after t0 so cannot be greater
>
> case 2
>
>                 monitoring period
>             /                       \
>             |                       |
>  2:    B----+-------------E         |
>             |             |         |
>             t0            tE        t1
>
> We get a notification for event E, right? We don=C2=B4t have one for B,
> because it happened before we were monitoring.

Ah, ok.  But there should be too many events in case 2 and
I don't think users want to see them all.  And they don't have
flags.  But maybe we can update the flag when it sees exactly
the same callstack later.

Thanks,
Namhyung