From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
To: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: rostedt <[email protected]>,
linux-kernel <[email protected]>,
linux-trace-devel <[email protected]>,
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>,
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>,
Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>,
io-uring <[email protected]>, paulmck <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: Update static_call before tp_funcs when adding a tracepoint
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:46:19 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YP/[email protected]>
----- On Jul 27, 2021, at 7:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 02:49:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> OK. I see the issue you are saying. And this came from my assumption
>> that the tracepoint code did a synchronization when unregistering the
>> last callback. But of course it wont because that would make a lot of
>> back to back synchronizations of a large number of tracepoints being
>> unregistered at once.
>>
>> And doing it for all 0->1 or 1->0 or even a 1->0->1 can be costly.
>>
>> One way to handle this is when going from 1->0, set off a worker that
>> will do the synchronization asynchronously, and if a 0->1 comes in,
>> have that block until the synchronization is complete. This should
>> work, and not have too much of an overhead.
>>
>> If one 1->0 starts the synchronization, and one or more 1->0
>> transitions happen, it will be recorded where the worker will do
>> another synchronization, to make sure all 1->0 have went through a full
>> synchronization before a 0->1 can happen.
>>
>> If a 0->1 comes in while a synchronization is happening, it will note
>> the current "number" for the synchronizations (if another one is
>> queued, it will wait for one more), before it can begin. As locks will
>> be held while waiting for synchronizations to finish, we don't need to
>> worry about another 1->0 coming in while a 0->1 is waiting.
>
> Wouldn't get_state_synchronize_rcu() and cond_synchronize_rcu() get you
> what you need?
Indeed, snapshotting the state and conditionally waiting for a grace period
if none happened since the snapshot appears to be the intent here. Using
get_state+cond_sync should allow us to do this without any additional worker
thread.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-27 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-23 2:33 [PATCH] tracepoints: Update static_call before tp_funcs when adding a tracepoint Steven Rostedt
2021-07-26 15:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-26 16:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-07-26 17:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-26 18:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-07-26 19:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-27 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-27 13:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1899212311.7583.1627393579305.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox