[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] enhance lock debugging


  • To: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:33:06 +0100
  • Authentication-results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABtClBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPokCOgQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86LkCDQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAYkC HwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
  • Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, WeiLiu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 08:33:20 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: a9FzzkqzFtQQusRAIycj5tB77/YIy2YyxoE4qgyYcMmvxkQldOz0oaoO++8nFaJNVo2z9+byDX s/ouX/kyKSlsL8VugcIHAwZIOuDbRpWkfA0FY/t2tiCTBtVJdLLug2ONNjL0vvqP8V6DQV+mtC TO+j/Jl6Pr1m8fwjlOAOg/nO1Zv74GBW1eatv7A/iS96H49Jy/f2sgrnSAQwrSCWJF9/YWqTlz Vp0iQuneMx+VgH+9x0zvJSFFG9oisKCiZxzK68LgGqJgmbJvjqmCu6vVC/mFl/yZidQ336Y8a+ SJI=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 08/08/2019 05:50, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 07.08.19 20:11, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> Its not exactly the easiest to dump to follow.
>>
>> First of all - I don't see why the hold/block time are printed like
>> that.  It
>> might be a holdover from the 32bit build, pre PRId64 support.  They
>> should
>> probably use PRI_stime anyway.
>
> Fine with me.
>
>> The domid rendering is unfortunate.  Ideally we'd use %pd but that would
>> involve rearranging the logic to get a struct domain* in hand. 
>> Seeing as
>> you're the last person to modify this code, how hard would that be to
>> do?
>
> It would completely break the struct type agnostic design.

Ok.  As an alternatively, how about %pdr which takes a raw domid?  It
would be a trivial adjustment in the vsnprintf code, and could plausibly
be useful elsewhere where we have a domid and not a domain pointer.

>
> I have a debug patch adding credit2 run-queue lock. It requires to just
> add 5 lines of code (and this includes moving the spinlock_init() out of
> an irq-off section). It will produce:
>
> (XEN) credit2-runq 0 lock: addr=ffff830413351010, lockval=de00ddf, cpu=6
> (XEN)   lock: 896287(00000000:00FAA6B2), block:  819(00000000:00009C80)

What is the 0 here?

>
>> We have several global locks called lock:
>>
>>    (XEN) Global lock: addr=ffff82d0808181e0, lockval=10001, cpu=4095
>>    (XEN)   lock:           1(00000000:01322165), block:           
>> 0(00000000:00000000)
>>    (XEN) Global lock: addr=ffff82d080817cc0, lockval=100010, cpu=4095
>>    (XEN)   lock:           0(00000000:00000000), block:           
>> 0(00000000:00000000)
>>    (XEN) Global lock: addr=ffff82d080817800, lockval=0000, cpu=4095
>>    (XEN)   lock:           0(00000000:00000000), block:           
>> 0(00000000:00000000)
>>    (XEN) Global lock: addr=ffff82d080817780, lockval=0000, cpu=4095
>>    (XEN)   lock:           0(00000000:00000000), block:           
>> 0(00000000:00000000)
>>    (XEN) Global lock: addr=ffff82d080817510, lockval=0000, cpu=4095
>>    (XEN)   lock:           0(00000000:00000000), block:           
>> 0(00000000:00000000)
>>
>> The second one in particular has corrupt data, seeing has it has been
>> taken
>> and released several times without lock_cnt increasing.
>
> The lock might have been taken/released before lock profiling has been
> initialized.

What is there to initialise?  It all looks statically set up.

>
>> For sanity sake, we should enforce unique naming of any lock
>> registered for
>> profiling.
>
> This would be every lock inited via DEFINE_SPINLOCK(). I can do a
> followup patch for that purpose.

I was wondering how to do this.  One option which comes to mind is to
put an non-static object into .discard.lock_profile or something, so the
linker will object to repeated symbol names and then throw all of them away.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.