From: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@broadcom.com>,
Alexey Makhalov <alexey.makhalov@broadcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to spinning locks
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:43:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ad_OMbqBSjtTPsok@shell.ilvokhin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d98d9f4-ccab-4864-b406-d3eb684cab45@paulmck-laptop>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 04:20:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > +static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Trace and unlock are combined in the traced unlock variant so
> > + * the compiler does not need to preserve the lock pointer across
> > + * the function call, avoiding callee-saved register save/restore
> > + * on the hot path.
> > + */
> > + if (tracepoint_enabled(contended_release)) {
> > + queued_read_unlock_traced(lock);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + __queued_read_unlock(lock);
> > +}
>
> Shouldn't this refactoring be its own separate patch, similar to 4/5?
>
> That would probably clean up this diff a bit.
>
> > +
> > +static __always_inline void __queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> > {
> > smp_store_release(&lock->wlocked, 0);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > - * queued_rwlock_is_contended - check if the lock is contended
> > + * queued_write_unlock - release write lock of a queued rwlock
> > * @lock : Pointer to queued rwlock structure
> > - * Return: 1 if lock contended, 0 otherwise
> > */
> > -static inline int queued_rwlock_is_contended(struct qrwlock *lock)
> > +static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> > {
> > - return arch_spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock);
> > + /* See comment in queued_read_unlock(). */
> > + if (tracepoint_enabled(contended_release)) {
> > + queued_write_unlock_traced(lock);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + __queued_write_unlock(lock);
>
> And the same here, so one patch for interposing __queued_read_unlock()
> and another for interposing __queued_write_unlock().
>
>
[...]
> And is it possible to have one patch for qspinlock and another for qrwlock?
> It *looks* like it should be.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
Thanks for the suggestion, Paul.
I think separate commits for the read and write paths of qrwlock is a
bit too fine-grained, but I like the point about mixing refactoring with
instrumentation and keeping different lock types separate.
I'll split this commit into four.
locking: Factor out __queued_read_unlock()/__queued_write_unlock()
locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to qrwlock
locking: Factor out queued_spin_release()
locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to qspinlock
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-15 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-26 15:09 [PATCH v4 0/5] locking: contended_release tracepoint instrumentation Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-26 15:10 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing/lock: Remove unnecessary linux/sched.h include Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-31 10:11 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-26 15:10 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Extract __percpu_up_read() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-26 15:10 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to sleepable locks Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-31 10:34 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-31 12:16 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-31 14:11 ` Usama Arif
2026-04-14 23:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-03-26 15:10 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] locking: Factor out queued_spin_release() Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-04-14 23:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-03-26 15:10 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] locking: Add contended_release tracepoint to spinning locks Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-04-14 23:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-15 17:43 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin [this message]
2026-03-26 15:55 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] locking: contended_release tracepoint instrumentation Matthew Wilcox
2026-03-26 16:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-26 17:47 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-03-31 10:27 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-31 12:32 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-04-07 13:10 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
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=ad_OMbqBSjtTPsok@shell.ilvokhin.com \
--to=d@ilvokhin.com \
--cc=ajay.kaher@broadcom.com \
--cc=alexey.makhalov@broadcom.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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