On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:51:43AM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Arnaldo, > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 6:23 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:29:53PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > The spinlock and rwlock use a single-element per-cpu array to track > > > current locks due to performance reason. But this means the key is > > > always available and it cannot simply account lock stats in the array > > > because some of them are invalid. > > > > > > In fact, the contention_end() program in the BPF invalidates the entry > > > by setting the 'lock' value to 0 instead of deleting the entry for the > > > hashmap. So it should skip entries with the lock value of 0 in the > > > account_end_timestamp(). > > > > Thanks, applied to perf-tools-next, > > I think this can go to perf-tools instead. I think I published it already, don't think this is a major problem tho, we can make a note when submitting for v6.12 that there are a few patches that are already mainline. For the future, its interesting that when posting patches we inform the intended branch where it should be applied, something like: [PATCH perf-tools] ... Or I can add something to my scripts to check if the patch is a regression introduced in the current merge window... - Arnaldo
