Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:09:20PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > > the stack pointer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct > > *prev, > > /* the actual thread switch */ > > last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); > > > > - contextidr_thread_switch(next); > > + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); > > The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For > a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, > cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack > value. > > > I have to I disagree with the statement that using prev isn't _any_ better. > Even if there are unhandled cases, from my observations, using prev is > _measurably_ better. On the other hand, I agree that 100% accuracy is > essential. > It is indeed better but we still miss the task creation (we only start tracing once the task is scheduled out and scheduled back in. > >>> Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will > >>> implode, > >>> and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. > >>> > >>> Which code path are you thinking of? > >> > >> copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load > >> the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as > >> returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we > >> don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly > >> created threads. > > > > Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than > > __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first > > contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for > > Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The > > alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If > > you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether > > the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel > > tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old > > stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new > > stack. > > I'm fine with using either of my previous patches (or are there still cases > where the second one is suspected to be wrong?) or rolling a new one using > finish_arch_switch(). Let me know if you all would prefer for me to start on > the latter. The second patch is not wrong but insufficient since it doesn't cover ret_from_fork. Will has a point that debuggers may use the contextidr event to look into the state of the tread which would still have the old stack with your first patch. But at least it is consistent with the arch/arm implementation which uses notifiers. So I would go with your first patch until we hear otherwise from the debuggers people, in which case we would probably need to fix both arch/arm and arch/arm64. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will > > > implode, > > > and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. > > > > > > Which code path are you thinking of? > > > > copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load > > the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as > > returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we > > don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly > > created threads. > > Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than > __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first > contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for > Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The > alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If > you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether > the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel > tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old > stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new > stack. The sp defines the current task, which is what the debugger will be interested in and will likely try to correlate with the PID reported in the contextidr, so I still maintain that it's important for these to be in sync. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
Hi Catalin, On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > the stack pointer. > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct > *prev, > /* the actual thread switch */ > last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); > > - contextidr_thread_switch(next); > + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. I have to I disagree with the statement that using prev isn't _any_ better. Even if there are unhandled cases, from my observations, using prev is _measurably_ better. On the other hand, I agree that 100% accuracy is essential. >>> Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, >>> and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. >>> >>> Which code path are you thinking of? >> >> copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load >> the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as >> returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we >> don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly >> created threads. > > Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than > __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first > contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for > Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The > alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If > you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether > the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel > tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old > stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new > stack. I'm fine with using either of my previous patches (or are there still cases where the second one is suspected to be wrong?) or rolling a new one using finish_arch_switch(). Let me know if you all would prefer for me to start on the latter. Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > > > > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > > > > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > > > > the stack pointer. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > > > index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct > > > > *prev, > > > > /* the actual thread switch */ > > > > last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); > > > > > > > > - contextidr_thread_switch(next); > > > > + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); > > > > > > The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For > > > a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, > > > cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack > > > value. > > > > Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, > > and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. > > > > Which code path are you thinking of? > > copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load > the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as > returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we > don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly > created threads. Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new stack. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > > > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > > > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > > > the stack pointer. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > > index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct > > > *prev, > > > /* the actual thread switch */ > > > last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); > > > > > > - contextidr_thread_switch(next); > > > + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); > > > > The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For > > a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, > > cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack > > value. > > Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, > and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. > > Which code path are you thinking of? copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly created threads. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > > the stack pointer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct > > *prev, > > /* the actual thread switch */ > > last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); > > > > - contextidr_thread_switch(next); > > + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); > > The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For > a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, > cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack > value. Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > the stack pointer. > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, > /* the actual thread switch */ > last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); > > - contextidr_thread_switch(next); > + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. So we either use current or move the call before cpu_switch_to() (I would go for the former). -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, /* the actual thread switch */ last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); - contextidr_thread_switch(next); + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. So we either use current or move the call before cpu_switch_to() (I would go for the former). -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, /* the actual thread switch */ last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); - contextidr_thread_switch(next); + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, /* the actual thread switch */ last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); - contextidr_thread_switch(next); + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly created threads. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, /* the actual thread switch */ last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); - contextidr_thread_switch(next); + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly created threads. Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new stack. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
Hi Catalin, On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, /* the actual thread switch */ last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); - contextidr_thread_switch(next); + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. nit I have to I disagree with the statement that using prev isn't _any_ better. Even if there are unhandled cases, from my observations, using prev is _measurably_ better. On the other hand, I agree that 100% accuracy is essential. /nit Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly created threads. Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new stack. I'm fine with using either of my previous patches (or are there still cases where the second one is suspected to be wrong?) or rolling a new one using finish_arch_switch(). Let me know if you all would prefer for me to start on the latter. Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly created threads. Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new stack. The sp defines the current task, which is what the debugger will be interested in and will likely try to correlate with the PID reported in the contextidr, so I still maintain that it's important for these to be in sync. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:09:20PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev, /* the actual thread switch */ last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next); - contextidr_thread_switch(next); + contextidr_thread_switch(prev); The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register, cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack value. nit I have to I disagree with the statement that using prev isn't _any_ better. Even if there are unhandled cases, from my observations, using prev is _measurably_ better. On the other hand, I agree that 100% accuracy is essential. /nit It is indeed better but we still miss the task creation (we only start tracing once the task is scheduled out and scheduled back in. Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will implode, and I can't see where else switch_to is called from. Which code path are you thinking of? copy_thread() zeros cpu_context which is used by cpu_switch_to() to load the next saved registers. The switch_to() function sets prev to last as returned by __switch_to(), so this is valid but in __switch_to() we don't have a valid prev (nor next) after cpu_switch_to() for newly created threads. Correction - newly created threads return to ret_from_fork rather than __switch_to(), which means that we miss the first contextidr_thread_switch() call for a new thread. I would vote for Christopher's original patch moving the call before cpu_switch_to(). The alternative is to define finish_arch_switch() and add the call there. If you are primarily tracing user space, it doesn't really matter whether the stack was switched or not when we set the contextidr. For kernel tracking, it could be a problem as we have the next task with the old stack. But the same could be said about the prev task with the new stack. I'm fine with using either of my previous patches (or are there still cases where the second one is suspected to be wrong?) or rolling a new one using finish_arch_switch(). Let me know if you all would prefer for me to start on the latter. The second patch is not wrong but insufficient since it doesn't cover ret_from_fork. Will has a point that debuggers may use the contextidr event to look into the state of the tread which would still have the old stack with your first patch. But at least it is consistent with the arch/arm implementation which uses notifiers. So I would go with your first patch until we hear otherwise from the debuggers people, in which case we would probably need to fix both arch/arm and arch/arm64. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
Hi Will, On 04/10/2013 07:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: >> For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev >> task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the >> the stack pointer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington > > Thanks Christopher -- I assume that using prev did resolve your issues? Yes indeed. We're now able to see in simulation that if a userspace process uses 100% CPU, its thread ID, rather than what was usually some random kthread, gets written out most of the time. I donno if that meets your criteria for a "real" use case, but I hope it's at least sufficient testing of the code for now. Thanks, Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the > the stack pointer. > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington Thanks Christopher -- I assume that using prev did resolve your issues? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org Thanks Christopher -- I assume that using prev did resolve your issues? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
Hi Will, On 04/10/2013 07:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the the stack pointer. Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org Thanks Christopher -- I assume that using prev did resolve your issues? Yes indeed. We're now able to see in simulation that if a userspace process uses 100% CPU, its thread ID, rather than what was usually some random kthread, gets written out most of the time. I donno if that meets your criteria for a real use case, but I hope it's at least sufficient testing of the code for now. Thanks, Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
