From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, shakeelb@google.com,
vegard.nossum@oracle.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 07:06:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230823050609.2228718-1-mjguzik@gmail.com> (raw)
To start I figured I'm going to bench about as friendly case as it gets
-- statically linked *separate* binaries all doing execve in a loop.
I borrowed the bench from here:
http://apollo.backplane.com/DFlyMisc/doexec.c
$ cc -static -O2 -o static-doexec doexec.c
$ ./static-doexec $(nproc)
It prints a result every second.
My test box is temporarily only 26 cores and even at this scale I run
into massive lock contention stemming from back-to-back calls to
percpu_counter_init (and _destroy later).
While not a panacea, one simple thing to do here is to batch these ops.
Since the term "batching" is already used in the file, I decided to
refer to it as "grouping" instead.
Even if this code could be patched to dodge these counters, I would
argue a high-traffic alloc/free consumer is only a matter of time so it
makes sense to facilitate it.
With the fix I get an ok win, to quote from the commit:
> Even at a very modest scale of 26 cores (ops/s):
> before: 133543.63
> after: 186061.81 (+39%)
While with the patch these allocations remain a significant problem,
the primary bottleneck shifts to:
__pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+1
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+57
folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave+91
release_pages+590
tlb_batch_pages_flush+61
tlb_finish_mmu+101
exit_mmap+327
__mmput+61
begin_new_exec+1245
load_elf_binary+712
bprm_execve+644
do_execveat_common.isra.0+429
__x64_sys_execve+50
do_syscall_64+46
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+110
I intend to do more work on the area to mostly sort it out, but I would
not mind if someone else took the hammer to folio. :)
With this out of the way I'll be looking at some form of caching to
eliminate these allocs as a problem.
v3:
- fix !CONFIG_SMP build
- drop the backtrace from fork commit message
v2:
- force bigger alignment on alloc
- rename "counters" to "nr_counters" and pass prior to lock key
- drop {}'s for single-statement loops
Mateusz Guzik (2):
pcpcntr: add group allocation/free
fork: group allocation of per-cpu counters for mm struct
include/linux/percpu_counter.h | 39 ++++++++++++++++++----
kernel/fork.c | 14 ++------
lib/percpu_counter.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
--
2.41.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-23 5:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-23 5:06 Mateusz Guzik [this message]
2023-08-23 5:06 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] pcpcntr: add group allocation/free Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-24 6:26 ` Dennis Zhou
2023-08-24 10:01 ` Vegard Nossum
2023-08-23 5:06 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] kernel/fork: group allocation/free of per-cpu counters for mm struct Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-24 6:28 ` Dennis Zhou
2023-09-06 8:25 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-25 15:14 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1 Dennis Zhou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230823050609.2228718-1-mjguzik@gmail.com \
--to=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox