Re: [PATCH v7 14/36] function_graph: Use a simple LRU for fgraph_array index number
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date: 2024-02-14 18:02:40
Also in:
bpf, lkml
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 00:10:04 +0900 "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c index ae42de909845..323a74623543 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c +++ b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c@@ -99,10 +99,44 @@ enum { DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(kill_ftrace_graph); int ftrace_graph_active; -static int fgraph_array_cnt; - static struct fgraph_ops *fgraph_array[FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE]; +/* LRU index table for fgraph_array */ +static int fgraph_lru_table[FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE]; +static int fgraph_lru_next; +static int fgraph_lru_last; + +static void fgraph_lru_init(void) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE; i++) + fgraph_lru_table[i] = i; +} + +static int fgraph_lru_release_index(int idx) +{ + if (idx < 0 || idx >= FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE || + fgraph_lru_table[fgraph_lru_last] != -1)
Can fgraph_lru_table[fgraph_lru_last] != -1 ever happen? If not, we should probably add a: WARN_ON_ONCE(fgraph_lru_table[fgraph_lru_last] != -1)) As the size of fgraph_lru_table is the same size as the available indexes, if we hit this I would think we had a fgraph_lru_relaese_index() without a fgraph_lru_alloc_index() associated with it.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ return -1; + + fgraph_lru_table[fgraph_lru_last] = idx; + fgraph_lru_last = (fgraph_lru_last + 1) % FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE; + return 0; +} + +static int fgraph_lru_alloc_index(void) +{ + int idx = fgraph_lru_table[fgraph_lru_next]; + + if (idx == -1) + return -1; + + fgraph_lru_table[fgraph_lru_next] = -1; + fgraph_lru_next = (fgraph_lru_next + 1) % FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE; + return idx; +} + static inline int get_ret_stack_index(struct task_struct *t, int offset) { return t->ret_stack[offset] & FGRAPH_RET_INDEX_MASK;@@ -367,7 +401,7 @@ int function_graph_enter(unsigned long ret, unsigned long func, if (index < 0) goto out; - for (i = 0; i < fgraph_array_cnt; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE; i++) { struct fgraph_ops *gops = fgraph_array[i]; if (gops == &fgraph_stub)@@ -935,21 +969,17 @@ int register_ftrace_graph(struct fgraph_ops *gops) /* The array must always have real data on it */ for (i = 0; i < FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE; i++) fgraph_array[i] = &fgraph_stub; + fgraph_lru_init(); } - /* Look for an available spot */ - for (i = 0; i < FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE; i++) { - if (fgraph_array[i] == &fgraph_stub) - break; - } - if (i >= FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE) { + i = fgraph_lru_alloc_index(); + if (i < 0 || + WARN_ON_ONCE(fgraph_array[i] != &fgraph_stub)) {
The above can nicely fit on one column. No need to break it up:
if (i < 0 || WARN_ON_ONCE(fgraph_array[i] != &fgraph_stub)) {
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
ret = -EBUSY; goto out; } fgraph_array[i] = gops; - if (i + 1 > fgraph_array_cnt) - fgraph_array_cnt = i + 1; gops->idx = i; ftrace_graph_active++;@@ -979,25 +1009,22 @@ int register_ftrace_graph(struct fgraph_ops *gops) void unregister_ftrace_graph(struct fgraph_ops *gops) { int command = 0; - int i; mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock); if (unlikely(!ftrace_graph_active)) goto out; - if (unlikely(gops->idx < 0 || gops->idx >= fgraph_array_cnt)) + if (unlikely(gops->idx < 0 || gops->idx >= FGRAPH_ARRAY_SIZE)) + goto out; + + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(fgraph_array[gops->idx] != gops)) goto out; - WARN_ON_ONCE(fgraph_array[gops->idx] != gops); + if (fgraph_lru_release_index(gops->idx) < 0) + goto out;
Removing the above WARN_ON_ONCE() is more reason to add it to the release function. -- Steve
fgraph_array[gops->idx] = &fgraph_stub;
- if (gops->idx + 1 == fgraph_array_cnt) {
- i = gops->idx;
- while (i >= 0 && fgraph_array[i] == &fgraph_stub)
- i--;
- fgraph_array_cnt = i + 1;
- }
ftrace_graph_active--;