Re: [PATCH v1] lib,kprobes: using try_cmpxchg_local in objpool_push

[Google]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:43:04 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:24:52 +0800
> "wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The objpool_push can only happen on local cpu node, so only the local
> > cpu can touch slot->tail and slot->last, which ensures the correctness
> > of using cmpxchg without lock prefix (using try_cmpxchg_local instead
> > of try_cmpxchg_acquire).
> > 
> > Testing with IACA found the lock version of pop/push pair costs 16.46
> > cycles and local-push version costs 15.63 cycles. Kretprobe throughput
> > is improved to 1.019 times of the lock version for x86_64 systems.
> > 
> > OS: Debian 10 X86_64, Linux 6.6rc6 with freelist
> > HW: XEON 8336C x 2, 64 cores/128 threads, DDR4 3200MT/s
> > 
> >                  1T         2T         4T         8T        16T
> >   lock:    29909085   59865637  119692073  239750369  478005250
> >   local:   30297523   60532376  121147338  242598499  484620355
> >                 32T        48T        64T        96T       128T
> >   lock:   957553042 1435814086 1680872925 2043126796 2165424198
> >   local:  968526317 1454991286 1861053557 2059530343 2171732306
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: wuqiang.matt <wuqiang.matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  lib/objpool.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/objpool.c b/lib/objpool.c
> > index ce0087f64400..a032701beccb 100644
> > --- a/lib/objpool.c
> > +++ b/lib/objpool.c
> > @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ objpool_try_add_slot(void *obj, struct objpool_head *pool, int cpu)
> >  		head = READ_ONCE(slot->head);
> >  		/* fault caught: something must be wrong */
> >  		WARN_ON_ONCE(tail - head > pool->nr_objs);
> > -	} while (!try_cmpxchg_acquire(&slot->tail, &tail, tail + 1));
> > +	} while (!try_cmpxchg_local(&slot->tail, &tail, tail + 1));
> >  
> >  	/* now the tail position is reserved for the given obj */
> >  	WRITE_ONCE(slot->entries[tail & slot->mask], obj);
> 
> I'm good with the change, but I don't like how "cpu" is passed to this
> function. It currently is only used in one location, which does:
> 
> 	rc = objpool_try_add_slot(obj, pool, raw_smp_processor_id());
> 
> Which makes this change fine. But there's nothing here to prevent someone
> for some reason passing another CPU to that function.
> 
> If we are to make that change, I would be much more comfortable with
> removing "int cpu" as a parameter to objpool_try_add_slot() and adding:
> 
> 	int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> 
> Which now shows that this function *only* deals with the current CPU.

Oh indeed. It used to search all CPUs to push the object, but
I asked him to stop that because there should be enough space to
push it in the local ring. This is a remnant of that time.

Wuqiang, can you make another patch to fix it?

Thank you,

> 
> -- Steve


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>