Commit 09f5e7dc authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra

perf: Fix perf_event_read_local() time

Time readers that cannot take locks (due to NMI etc..) currently make
use of perf_event::shadow_ctx_time, which, for that event gives:

  time' = now + (time - timestamp)

or, alternatively arranged:

  time' = time + (now - timestamp)

IOW, the progression of time since the last time the shadow_ctx_time
was updated.

There's problems with this:

 A) the shadow_ctx_time is per-event, even though the ctx_time it
    reflects is obviously per context. The direct concequence of this
    is that the context needs to iterate all events all the time to
    keep the shadow_ctx_time in sync.

 B) even with the prior point, the context itself might not be active
    meaning its time should not advance to begin with.

 C) shadow_ctx_time isn't consistently updated when ctx_time is

There are 3 users of this stuff, that suffer differently from this:

 - calc_timer_values()
   - perf_output_read()
   - perf_event_update_userpage()	/* A */

 - perf_event_read_local()		/* A,B */

In particular, perf_output_read() doesn't suffer at all, because it's
sample driven and hence only relevant when the event is actually
running.

This same was supposed to be true for perf_event_update_userpage(),
after all self-monitoring implies the context is active *HOWEVER*, as
per commit f7925653 ("perf/core: fix userpage->time_enabled of
inactive events") this goes wrong when combined with counter
overcommit, in that case those events that do not get scheduled when
the context becomes active (task events typically) miss out on the
EVENT_TIME update and ENABLED time is inflated (for a little while)
with the time the context was inactive. Once the event gets rotated
in, this gets corrected, leading to a non-monotonic timeflow.

perf_event_read_local() made things even worse, it can request time at
any point, suffering all the problems perf_event_update_userpage()
does and more. Because while perf_event_update_userpage() is limited
by the context being active, perf_event_read_local() users have no
such constraint.

Therefore, completely overhaul things and do away with
perf_event::shadow_ctx_time. Instead have regular context time updates
keep track of this offset directly and provide perf_event_time_now()
to complement perf_event_time().

perf_event_time_now() will, in adition to being context wide, also
take into account if the context is active. For inactive context, it
will not advance time.

This latter property means the cgroup perf_cgroup_info context needs
to grow addition state to track this.

Additionally, since all this is strictly per-cpu, we can use barrier()
to order context activity vs context time.

Fixes: 7d9285e8 ("perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a. "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"")
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: default avatarSong Liu <song@kernel.org>
Tested-by: default avatarNamhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YcB06DasOBtU0b00@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
parent fb3b0673
......@@ -693,18 +693,6 @@ struct perf_event {
u64 total_time_running;
u64 tstamp;
/*
* timestamp shadows the actual context timing but it can
* be safely used in NMI interrupt context. It reflects the
* context time as it was when the event was last scheduled in,
* or when ctx_sched_in failed to schedule the event because we
* run out of PMC.
*
* ctx_time already accounts for ctx->timestamp. Therefore to
* compute ctx_time for a sample, simply add perf_clock().
*/
u64 shadow_ctx_time;
struct perf_event_attr attr;
u16 header_size;
u16 id_header_size;
......@@ -852,6 +840,7 @@ struct perf_event_context {
*/
u64 time;
u64 timestamp;
u64 timeoffset;
/*
* These fields let us detect when two contexts have both
......@@ -934,6 +923,8 @@ struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern {
struct perf_cgroup_info {
u64 time;
u64 timestamp;
u64 timeoffset;
int active;
};
struct perf_cgroup {
......
This diff is collapsed.
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment