# Re: \[PATCH v12 06/14\] unwind\_user/deferred: Add deferred unwinding interface

- From: Mathieu Desnoyers \<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com\>
- Date: 2025-07-02 19:48:24 
- List: linux-trace-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2025/07/3118274
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2025/07/3114813/t.md

```text
On 2025-07-02 15:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:36:00 -0400
> Steven Rostedt [ref] wrote:
>
>> union unwind_task_id {
>> 	struct {
>> 		u32		task_id;
>> 		u32		cnt;
>> 	}
>> 	u64 id;
>> };
>>
>> static u64 get_cookie(struct unwind_task_info *info)
>> {
>> 	u32 cnt = READ_ONCE(info->id.cnt);
>> 	u32 new_cnt;
>>
>> 	if (cnt & 1)
>> 		return info->id;
>>
>> 	if (unlikely(!info->id.task_id)) {
>> 		u32 task_id = local_clock();
>>
>> 		cnt = 0;
>> 		if (try_cmpxchg(&info->id.task_id, &cnt, task_id))
>> 			task_id = cnt;
>> 	}
>>
>> 	new_cnt = cnt + 3;
>> 	if (try_cmpxchg(&info->id, &cnt, new_cnt))
>> 		new_cnt = cnt; // try_cmpxchg() expects something
>>
>> 	return info->id;
>> }
>
> Honestly I think this is way overkill. What I would do, is to have the
> cookie saved in the event be 64 bit, but we can start with the
> simple 32 bit solution keeping the top 32 bits zeros. If this does
> indeed become an issue in the future, we could fix it with a 64 bit
> number. By making sure all the exposed "cookies" are 64 bit, it should
> not break anything. The cookie is just supposed to be a random unique
> number that associates a request with its deferred user space stack
> trace.
>
> With any exposed cookies to user space being 64 bits, this should not
> be an issue to address in the future.

FWIW, I liked your idea of making the cookie 64-bit with:

- 32-bit cpu number,
- 32-bit per-CPU free running counter.

This is simple, works on 32-bit archs, and it does not overflow as often
as time LSB because it counts execution contexts.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
```