commit f4bf3ca2e5cba655824b6e0893a98dfb33ed24e5 upstream.
Tasklets are supposed to finish their work quickly and should not block the current running process, but it is not guaranteed that they do so.
Currently softirq_entry/exit can be used to analyse the total tasklets execution time, but that's not helpful to track individual tasklets execution time. That makes it hard to identify tasklet functions, which take more time than expected.
Add tasklet_entry/exit trace point support to track individual tasklet execution.
Trivial usage example: # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/irq/tasklet_entry/enable # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/irq/tasklet_exit/enable # cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace # tracer: nop # # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 4/4 #P:4 # # _-----=> irqs-off/BH-disabled # / _----=> need-resched # | / _---=> hardirq/softirq # || / _--=> preempt-depth # ||| / _-=> migrate-disable # |||| / delay # TASK-PID CPU# ||||| TIMESTAMP FUNCTION # | | | ||||| | | <idle>-0 [003] ..s1. 314.011428: tasklet_entry: tasklet=0xffffa01ef8db2740 function=tcp_tasklet_func <idle>-0 [003] ..s1. 314.011432: tasklet_exit: tasklet=0xffffa01ef8db2740 function=tcp_tasklet_func <idle>-0 [003] ..s1. 314.017369: tasklet_entry: tasklet=0xffffa01ef8db2740 function=tcp_tasklet_func <idle>-0 [003] ..s1. 314.017371: tasklet_exit: tasklet=0xffffa01ef8db2740 function=tcp_tasklet_func
Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar clingutla@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: J. Avila elavila@google.com Signed-off-by: John Stultz jstultz@google.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) rostedt@goodmis.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230407230526.1685443-1-jstultz@google.com
[elavila: Port to android-mainline] [jstultz: Rebased to upstream, cut unused trace points, added comments for the tracepoints, reworded commit]
Signed-off-by: Sumanth Gavini sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com --- include/trace/events/irq.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/softirq.c | 9 ++++++-- 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/trace/events/irq.h b/include/trace/events/irq.h index eeceafaaea4c..a07b4607b663 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/irq.h +++ b/include/trace/events/irq.h @@ -160,6 +160,53 @@ DEFINE_EVENT(softirq, softirq_raise, TP_ARGS(vec_nr) );
+DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(tasklet, + + TP_PROTO(struct tasklet_struct *t, void *func), + + TP_ARGS(t, func), + + TP_STRUCT__entry( + __field( void *, tasklet) + __field( void *, func) + ), + + TP_fast_assign( + __entry->tasklet = t; + __entry->func = func; + ), + + TP_printk("tasklet=%ps function=%ps", __entry->tasklet, __entry->func) +); + +/** + * tasklet_entry - called immediately before the tasklet is run + * @t: tasklet pointer + * @func: tasklet callback or function being run + * + * Used to find individual tasklet execution time + */ +DEFINE_EVENT(tasklet, tasklet_entry, + + TP_PROTO(struct tasklet_struct *t, void *func), + + TP_ARGS(t, func) +); + +/** + * tasklet_exit - called immediately after the tasklet is run + * @t: tasklet pointer + * @func: tasklet callback or function being run + * + * Used to find individual tasklet execution time + */ +DEFINE_EVENT(tasklet, tasklet_exit, + + TP_PROTO(struct tasklet_struct *t, void *func), + + TP_ARGS(t, func) +); + #endif /* _TRACE_IRQ_H */
/* This part must be outside protection */ diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c index 9ab5ca399a99..fadc6bbda27b 100644 --- a/kernel/softirq.c +++ b/kernel/softirq.c @@ -822,10 +822,15 @@ static void tasklet_action_common(struct softirq_action *a, if (tasklet_trylock(t)) { if (!atomic_read(&t->count)) { if (tasklet_clear_sched(t)) { - if (t->use_callback) + if (t->use_callback) { + trace_tasklet_entry(t, t->callback); t->callback(t); - else + trace_tasklet_exit(t, t->callback); + } else { + trace_tasklet_entry(t, t->func); t->func(t->data); + trace_tasklet_exit(t, t->func); + } } tasklet_unlock(t); continue;
Hi All,
Just following up on my patch submitted with subject "Subject: [PATCH 6.1] softirq: Add trace points for tasklet entry/exit".
Original message: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250812161755.609600-1-sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com...
Would you have any feedback on this change? I'd be happy to address any comments or concerns.
This patch fixes this three bugs 1. https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=5284a86a0b0a31ab266a 2. https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=296695c8ae3c7da3d511 3. https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=97f2ac670e5e7a3b48e4
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards, Sumanth Gavini
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:41 AM Sumanth Gavini sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi All,
Just following up on my patch submitted with subject "Subject: [PATCH 6.1] softirq: Add trace points for tasklet entry/exit".
Original message: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250812161755.609600-1-sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com...
Would you have any feedback on this change? I'd be happy to address any comments or concerns.
This patch fixes this three bugs
How does a patch adding a tracepoint fix the bugs highlighted here? It seems maybe it would help in debugging those issues, but I'm not sure I see how it would fix them.
thanks -john
Hi All,
Just following up on my patch submitted with subject "Subject: [PATCH 6.1] softirq: Add trace points for tasklet entry/exit".
Original message: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250812161755.609600-1-sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com...
Would you have any feedback on this change? I'd be happy to address any comments or concerns.
This patch fixes this three bugs
How does a patch adding a tracepoint fix the bugs highlighted here? It seems maybe it would help in debugging those issues, but I'm not sure I see how it would fix them.
This patch is related to linux 6.1/backports, the backports(https://syzkaller.appspot.com/linux-6.1/backports) I see this patch would fix these bugs. Let me know if my understand is wrong.
Regards, Sumanth
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 2:02 PM Sumanth Gavini sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com wrote:
Just following up on my patch submitted with subject "Subject: [PATCH 6.1] softirq: Add trace points for tasklet entry/exit".
Original message: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250812161755.609600-1-sumanth.gavini@yahoo.com...
Would you have any feedback on this change? I'd be happy to address any comments or concerns.
This patch fixes this three bugs
How does a patch adding a tracepoint fix the bugs highlighted here? It seems maybe it would help in debugging those issues, but I'm not sure I see how it would fix them.
This patch is related to linux 6.1/backports, the backports(https://syzkaller.appspot.com/linux-6.1/backports) I see this patch would fix these bugs. Let me know if my understand is wrong.
But that doesn't explain why or how it fixes the bugs. I'm not opposed to stable taking this, but the reasoning should be clear, if that is the motivation for including this change. I fret there is something incidental in this patch that avoids the problem, and that those issues may need a deeper fix rather then to hide them with this change.
thanks -john
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org