From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
To: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
oleg@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org,
paulmck@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, surenb@google.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v5 8/8] uprobes: switch to RCU Tasks Trace flavor for better performance
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 10:46:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240903174603.3554182-9-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240903174603.3554182-1-andrii@kernel.org>
This patch switches uprobes SRCU usage to RCU Tasks Trace flavor, which
is optimized for more lightweight and quick readers (at the expense of
slower writers, which for uprobes is a fine tradeof) and has better
performance and scalability with number of CPUs.
Similarly to baseline vs SRCU, we've benchmarked SRCU-based
implementation vs RCU Tasks Trace implementation.
SRCU
====
uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 3.276 ± 0.005M/s ( 3.276M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 4.125 ± 0.002M/s ( 2.063M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 7.713 ± 0.002M/s ( 1.928M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 8.097 ± 0.006M/s ( 1.012M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 6.501 ± 0.056M/s ( 0.406M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 4.398 ± 0.084M/s ( 0.137M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 6.452 ± 0.000M/s ( 0.101M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 2.055 ± 0.001M/s ( 2.055M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 2.677 ± 0.000M/s ( 1.339M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 4.561 ± 0.003M/s ( 1.140M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 5.291 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.661M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop (16 cpus): 5.065 ± 0.019M/s ( 0.317M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop (32 cpus): 3.622 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.113M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop (64 cpus): 3.723 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.058M/s/cpu)
RCU Tasks Trace
===============
uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 3.396 ± 0.002M/s ( 3.396M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 4.271 ± 0.006M/s ( 2.135M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 8.499 ± 0.015M/s ( 2.125M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 10.355 ± 0.028M/s ( 1.294M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 7.615 ± 0.099M/s ( 0.476M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 4.430 ± 0.007M/s ( 0.138M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 6.887 ± 0.020M/s ( 0.108M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 2.174 ± 0.001M/s ( 2.174M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 2.853 ± 0.001M/s ( 1.426M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 4.913 ± 0.002M/s ( 1.228M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 5.883 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.735M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop (16 cpus): 5.147 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.322M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop (32 cpus): 3.738 ± 0.008M/s ( 0.117M/s/cpu)
uretprobe-nop (64 cpus): 4.397 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.069M/s/cpu)
Peak throughput for uprobes increases from 8 mln/s to 10.3 mln/s
(+28%!), and for uretprobes from 5.3 mln/s to 5.8 mln/s (+11%), as we
have more work to do on uretprobes side.
Even single-thread (no contention) performance is slightly better: 3.276
mln/s to 3.396 mln/s (+3.5%) for uprobes, and 2.055 mln/s to 2.174 mln/s
(+5.8%) for uretprobes.
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 8a464cf38127..1b3990dd9c93 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
#include <linux/task_work.h>
#include <linux/shmem_fs.h>
#include <linux/khugepaged.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate_trace.h>
#include <linux/uprobes.h>
@@ -42,8 +43,6 @@ static struct rb_root uprobes_tree = RB_ROOT;
static DEFINE_RWLOCK(uprobes_treelock); /* serialize rbtree access */
static seqcount_rwlock_t uprobes_seqcount = SEQCNT_RWLOCK_ZERO(uprobes_seqcount, &uprobes_treelock);
-DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(uprobes_srcu);
-
#define UPROBES_HASH_SZ 13
/* serialize uprobe->pending_list */
static struct mutex uprobes_mmap_mutex[UPROBES_HASH_SZ];
@@ -652,7 +651,7 @@ static void put_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
delayed_uprobe_remove(uprobe, NULL);
mutex_unlock(&delayed_uprobe_lock);
- call_srcu(&uprobes_srcu, &uprobe->rcu, uprobe_free_rcu);
+ call_rcu_tasks_trace(&uprobe->rcu, uprobe_free_rcu);
}
static __always_inline
@@ -707,7 +706,7 @@ static struct uprobe *find_uprobe_rcu(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
struct rb_node *node;
unsigned int seq;
- lockdep_assert(srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu));
+ lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
do {
seq = read_seqcount_begin(&uprobes_seqcount);
@@ -935,8 +934,7 @@ static bool filter_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
bool ret = false;
down_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
- list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
- srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
ret = consumer_filter(uc, mm);
if (ret)
break;
@@ -1157,7 +1155,7 @@ void uprobe_unregister_sync(void)
* unlucky enough caller can free consumer's memory and cause
* handler_chain() or handle_uretprobe_chain() to do an use-after-free.
*/
- synchronize_srcu(&uprobes_srcu);
+ synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_unregister_sync);
@@ -1241,19 +1239,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_register);
int uprobe_apply(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
{
struct uprobe_consumer *con;
- int ret = -ENOENT, srcu_idx;
+ int ret = -ENOENT;
down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
- srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
- list_for_each_entry_srcu(con, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
- srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ rcu_read_lock_trace();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(con, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
if (con == uc) {
ret = register_for_each_vma(uprobe, add ? uc : NULL);
break;
}
}
- srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
+ rcu_read_unlock_trace();
up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
@@ -2123,8 +2120,7 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch;
- list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
- srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
int rc = 0;
if (uc->handler) {
@@ -2162,15 +2158,13 @@ handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
- int srcu_idx;
- srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
- list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
- srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ rcu_read_lock_trace();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
if (uc->ret_handler)
uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
}
- srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
+ rcu_read_unlock_trace();
}
static struct return_instance *find_next_ret_chain(struct return_instance *ri)
@@ -2255,13 +2249,13 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe *uprobe;
unsigned long bp_vaddr;
- int is_swbp, srcu_idx;
+ int is_swbp;
bp_vaddr = uprobe_get_swbp_addr(regs);
if (bp_vaddr == uprobe_get_trampoline_vaddr())
return uprobe_handle_trampoline(regs);
- srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
+ rcu_read_lock_trace();
uprobe = find_active_uprobe_rcu(bp_vaddr, &is_swbp);
if (!uprobe) {
@@ -2319,7 +2313,7 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
out:
/* arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() succeeded, or restart if can't singlestep */
- srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
+ rcu_read_unlock_trace();
}
/*
--
2.43.5
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-03 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-03 17:45 [PATCH v5 0/8] uprobes: RCU-protected hot path optimizations Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:45 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] uprobes: revamp uprobe refcounting and lifetime management Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:45 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] uprobes: protected uprobe lifetime with SRCU Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:45 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] uprobes: get rid of enum uprobe_filter_ctx in uprobe filter callbacks Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:45 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly under SRCU protection Andrii Nakryiko
2024-11-06 12:03 ` Breno Leitao
2024-11-06 16:25 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-11-07 11:35 ` Breno Leitao
2024-11-07 16:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-11-07 16:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-09-03 17:46 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] perf/uprobe: split uprobe_unregister() Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:46 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] rbtree: provide rb_find_rcu() / rb_find_add_rcu() Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:46 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] uprobes: perform lockless SRCU-protected uprobes_tree lookup Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-03 17:46 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
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=20240903174603.3554182-9-andrii@kernel.org \
--to=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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