[PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary

[PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary

[Waiman Long]

The kernel test robot has reported that the use of __this_cpu_add()
causes bug messages like:

  BUG: using __this_cpu_add() in preemptible [00000000] code: ...

Given the imprecise nature of the count and the possibility of resetting
the count and doing the measurement again, this is not really a big
problem to use the unprotected __this_cpu_*() functions.

To make the preemption checking code happy, the this_cpu_*() functions
will be used if CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is defined.

The imprecise nature of the locking counts are also documented with
the suggestion that we should run the measurement a few times with the
counts reset in between to get a better picture of what is going on
under the hood.

Fixes: a8654596f0371 ("locking/rwsem: Enable lock event counting")
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lock_events.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
index feb1acc54611..46b71af8eef2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
@@ -30,13 +30,51 @@ enum lock_events {
  */
 DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, lockevents[lockevent_num]);
 
+/*
+ * The purpose of the lock event counting subsystem is to provide a low
+ * overhead way to record the number of specific locking events by using
+ * percpu counters. It is the percpu sum that matters, not specifically
+ * how many of them happens in each cpu.
+ *
+ * It is possible that the same percpu counter may be modified in both
+ * the process and interrupt contexts. For architectures that perform
+ * percpu operation with multiple instructions, it is possible to lose
+ * count if a process context percpu update is interrupted in the middle
+ * and the same counter is updated in the interrupt context. Therefore,
+ * the generated percpu sum may not be precise. The error, if any, should
+ * be small and insignificant.
+ *
+ * For those architectures that do multi-instruction percpu operation,
+ * preemption in the middle and moving the task to another cpu may cause
+ * a larger error in the count. Again, this will be few and far between.
+ * Given the imprecise nature of the count and the possibility of resetting
+ * the count and doing the measurement again, this is not really a big
+ * problem.
+ *
+ * To get a better picture of what is happening under the hood, it is
+ * suggested that a few measurements should be taken with the counts
+ * reset in between to stamp out outliner because of these possible
+ * error conditions.
+ *
+ * To minimize overhead, we use __this_cpu_*() in all cases except when
+ * CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is defined. In this particular case, this_cpu_*()
+ * will be used to avoid the appearance of unwanted BUG messages.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
+#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		this_cpu_inc(x)
+#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	this_cpu_add(x, v)
+#else
+#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		__this_cpu_inc(x)
+#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	__this_cpu_add(x, v)
+#endif
+
 /*
  * Increment the PV qspinlock statistical counters
  */
 static inline void __lockevent_inc(enum lock_events event, bool cond)
 {
 	if (cond)
-		__this_cpu_inc(lockevents[event]);
+		lockevent_percpu_inc(lockevents[event]);
 }
 
 #define lockevent_inc(ev)	  __lockevent_inc(LOCKEVENT_ ##ev, true)
@@ -44,7 +82,7 @@ static inline void __lockevent_inc(enum lock_events event, bool cond)
 
 static inline void __lockevent_add(enum lock_events event, int inc)
 {
-	__this_cpu_add(lockevents[event], inc);
+	lockevent_percpu_add(lockevents[event], inc);
 }
 
 #define lockevent_add(ev, c)	__lockevent_add(LOCKEVENT_ ##ev, c)
-- 
2.18.1

Re: [PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:42 PM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Fixes: a8654596f0371 ("locking/rwsem: Enable lock event counting")

Applied directly,

               Linus

Re: [PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:42:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> +#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		this_cpu_inc(x)
> +#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	this_cpu_add(x, v)
> +#else
> +#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		__this_cpu_inc(x)
> +#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	__this_cpu_add(x, v)
> +#endif

That's disguisting... I see Linus already applied it, but yuck. That's
what we have raw_cpu_*() for.

Something like the below perhaps.

---

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
index 46b71af8eef2..8c7e7d25f09c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
@@ -31,50 +31,13 @@ enum lock_events {
 DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, lockevents[lockevent_num]);
 
 /*
- * The purpose of the lock event counting subsystem is to provide a low
- * overhead way to record the number of specific locking events by using
- * percpu counters. It is the percpu sum that matters, not specifically
- * how many of them happens in each cpu.
- *
- * It is possible that the same percpu counter may be modified in both
- * the process and interrupt contexts. For architectures that perform
- * percpu operation with multiple instructions, it is possible to lose
- * count if a process context percpu update is interrupted in the middle
- * and the same counter is updated in the interrupt context. Therefore,
- * the generated percpu sum may not be precise. The error, if any, should
- * be small and insignificant.
- *
- * For those architectures that do multi-instruction percpu operation,
- * preemption in the middle and moving the task to another cpu may cause
- * a larger error in the count. Again, this will be few and far between.
- * Given the imprecise nature of the count and the possibility of resetting
- * the count and doing the measurement again, this is not really a big
- * problem.
- *
- * To get a better picture of what is happening under the hood, it is
- * suggested that a few measurements should be taken with the counts
- * reset in between to stamp out outliner because of these possible
- * error conditions.
- *
- * To minimize overhead, we use __this_cpu_*() in all cases except when
- * CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is defined. In this particular case, this_cpu_*()
- * will be used to avoid the appearance of unwanted BUG messages.
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
-#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		this_cpu_inc(x)
-#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	this_cpu_add(x, v)
-#else
-#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		__this_cpu_inc(x)
-#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	__this_cpu_add(x, v)
-#endif
-
-/*
- * Increment the PV qspinlock statistical counters
+ * Increment the statistical counters. use raw_cpu_inc() because of lower
+ * overhead and we don't care if we loose the occasional update.
  */
 static inline void __lockevent_inc(enum lock_events event, bool cond)
 {
 	if (cond)
-		lockevent_percpu_inc(lockevents[event]);
+		raw_cpu_inc(lockevents[event]);
 }
 
 #define lockevent_inc(ev)	  __lockevent_inc(LOCKEVENT_ ##ev, true)
@@ -82,7 +45,7 @@ static inline void __lockevent_inc(enum lock_events event, bool cond)
 
 static inline void __lockevent_add(enum lock_events event, int inc)
 {
-	lockevent_percpu_add(lockevents[event], inc);
+	raw_cpu_add(lockevents[event], inc);
 }
 
 #define lockevent_add(ev, c)	__lockevent_add(LOCKEVENT_ ##ev, c)

Re: [PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:23 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> That's disguisting... I see Linus already applied it, but yuck. That's
> what we have raw_cpu_*() for.

Ahh, I tried to look for that, but there was enough indirection and
confusion that I wasn't sure they were generically available.

And the "raw_cpu_*()" functions are rare enough that I'd never
encountered them enough to really be aware of them. In fact, we seem
to have exactly _one_ user of "raw_cpu_add()" in the whole kernel, and
a handful of "raw_cpu_inc()".

But ack on your patch, and a heartfelt "yeah, that's the right thing". Thanks,

                Linus

Re: [PATCH v4] locking/lock_events: Use this_cpu_add() when necessary

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:33:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:23 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > That's disguisting... I see Linus already applied it, but yuck. That's
> > what we have raw_cpu_*() for.
> 
> Ahh, I tried to look for that, but there was enough indirection and
> confusion that I wasn't sure they were generically available.
> 
> And the "raw_cpu_*()" functions are rare enough that I'd never
> encountered them enough to really be aware of them. In fact, we seem
> to have exactly _one_ user of "raw_cpu_add()" in the whole kernel, and
> a handful of "raw_cpu_inc()".

Yeah, not having many is good. From a correctness PoV they're basically
always the wrong thing to use, except for this one usecase where we
prefer speed over correctness.

> But ack on your patch, and a heartfelt "yeah, that's the right thing". Thanks,

Thanks, I'll go write me a Changelog then ;-)

[tip:locking/core] locking/lock_events: Use raw_cpu_{add,inc}() for stats

[tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra]

Commit-ID:  24811637dbfd07c69da7e9db586d35d17e6afca3
Gitweb:     https://git.kernel.org/tip/24811637dbfd07c69da7e9db586d35d17e6afca3
Author:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
AuthorDate: Mon, 27 May 2019 10:23:26 +0200
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:32:56 +0200

locking/lock_events: Use raw_cpu_{add,inc}() for stats

Instead of playing silly games with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT toggling
between this_cpu_*() and __this_cpu_*() use raw_cpu_*(), which is
exactly what we want here.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190527082326.GP2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/lock_events.h | 45 ++++----------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
index 46b71af8eef2..8c7e7d25f09c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/lock_events.h
@@ -31,50 +31,13 @@ enum lock_events {
 DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, lockevents[lockevent_num]);
 
 /*
- * The purpose of the lock event counting subsystem is to provide a low
- * overhead way to record the number of specific locking events by using
- * percpu counters. It is the percpu sum that matters, not specifically
- * how many of them happens in each cpu.
- *
- * It is possible that the same percpu counter may be modified in both
- * the process and interrupt contexts. For architectures that perform
- * percpu operation with multiple instructions, it is possible to lose
- * count if a process context percpu update is interrupted in the middle
- * and the same counter is updated in the interrupt context. Therefore,
- * the generated percpu sum may not be precise. The error, if any, should
- * be small and insignificant.
- *
- * For those architectures that do multi-instruction percpu operation,
- * preemption in the middle and moving the task to another cpu may cause
- * a larger error in the count. Again, this will be few and far between.
- * Given the imprecise nature of the count and the possibility of resetting
- * the count and doing the measurement again, this is not really a big
- * problem.
- *
- * To get a better picture of what is happening under the hood, it is
- * suggested that a few measurements should be taken with the counts
- * reset in between to stamp out outliner because of these possible
- * error conditions.
- *
- * To minimize overhead, we use __this_cpu_*() in all cases except when
- * CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is defined. In this particular case, this_cpu_*()
- * will be used to avoid the appearance of unwanted BUG messages.
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
-#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		this_cpu_inc(x)
-#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	this_cpu_add(x, v)
-#else
-#define lockevent_percpu_inc(x)		__this_cpu_inc(x)
-#define lockevent_percpu_add(x, v)	__this_cpu_add(x, v)
-#endif
-
-/*
- * Increment the PV qspinlock statistical counters
+ * Increment the statistical counters. use raw_cpu_inc() because of lower
+ * overhead and we don't care if we loose the occasional update.
  */
 static inline void __lockevent_inc(enum lock_events event, bool cond)
 {
 	if (cond)
-		lockevent_percpu_inc(lockevents[event]);
+		raw_cpu_inc(lockevents[event]);
 }
 
 #define lockevent_inc(ev)	  __lockevent_inc(LOCKEVENT_ ##ev, true)
@@ -82,7 +45,7 @@ static inline void __lockevent_inc(enum lock_events event, bool cond)
 
 static inline void __lockevent_add(enum lock_events event, int inc)
 {
-	lockevent_percpu_add(lockevents[event], inc);
+	raw_cpu_add(lockevents[event], inc);
 }
 
 #define lockevent_add(ev, c)	__lockevent_add(LOCKEVENT_ ##ev, c)