Re: [PATCH v5 3/9] unwind deferred: Use bitmask to determine which callbacks to call
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:12:10 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-toolchains,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-perf-users,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:00:07 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> It is enough to guard with RCU ? See syscall_regfunc() from > >> tracepoint.c where we do: > >> > >> read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > >> for_each_process_thread(p, t) { > >> set_task_syscall_work(t, SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT); > >> } > >> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > >> > >> To prevent concurrent fork from adding threads while we > >> iterate, thus opening the possibility of missing a clear > >> due to a concurrent fork + set bit. > > > > A set_bit only would happen if the callback was live and accepting new > > callback requests. It's a bug for a tracer to call unwind_deferred_cancel() > > and then call unwind_deferred_request() (which would set the bit). We could > > possibly set the tracer's unwind descriptor id to -1, and do an > > WARN_ON_ONCE() in unwind_deferred_request() if the tracer's id is negative. > > > > The loop is called under the callback_mutex, where no new tracer could > > register and be assigned that bit. > > Ah, that's the piece I missed. The callback_mutex prevents reallocation > of the ID by unwind_deferred_init while iterating on the tasks. > > One more comment: if we change the linked list for an array (or make the > linked list an RCU list), can we remove the callback_mutex from > unwind_deferred_task_work by turning it into an RCU read-side ? > > Then we just need to wait for a grace period before returning from > unwind_deferred_cancel, which then allows the caller to reclaim "work". > > Taking the callback_mutex in unwind_deferred_task_work will end up being > the single thing that does a lot of cache line bouncing across CPUs when > hit heavily by tracers. I'm not against this, but again, that's an optimization. I want to keep the initial code simple. And then add the more complex optimizations when this is stable. -- Steve