Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access

[Google]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:01:47 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 8:03 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:57:35 -0700
> > Jonathan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Active uprobes are stored in an RB tree and accesses to this tree are
> > > dominated by read operations. Currently these accesses are serialized by
> > > a spinlock but this leads to enormous contention when large numbers of
> > > threads are executing active probes.
> > >
> > > This patch converts the spinlock used to serialize access to the
> > > uprobes_tree RB tree into a reader-writer spinlock. This lock type
> > > aligns naturally with the overwhelmingly read-only nature of the tree
> > > usage here. Although the addition of reader-writer spinlocks are
> > > discouraged [0], this fix is proposed as an interim solution while an
> > > RCU based approach is implemented (that work is in a nascent form). This
> > > fix also has the benefit of being trivial, self contained and therefore
> > > simple to backport.
> > >
> > > This change has been tested against production workloads that exhibit
> > > significant contention on the spinlock and an almost order of magnitude
> > > reduction for mean uprobe execution time is observed (28 -> 3.5 microsecs).
> >
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Masami,
> 
> Given the discussion around per-cpu rw semaphore and need for
> (internal) batched attachment API for uprobes, do you think you can
> apply this patch as is for now? We can then gain initial improvements
> in scalability that are also easy to backport, and Jonathan will work
> on a more complete solution based on per-cpu RW semaphore, as
> suggested by Ingo.

Yeah, it is interesting to use per-cpu rw semaphore on uprobe.
I would like to wait for the next version.

Thank you,

> 
> >
> > BTW, how did you measure the overhead? I think spinlock overhead
> > will depend on how much lock contention happens.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > >
> > > [0] https://docs.kernel.org/locking/spinlocks.html
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/events/uprobes.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > index 929e98c62965..42bf9b6e8bc0 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static struct rb_root uprobes_tree = RB_ROOT;
> > >   */
> > >  #define no_uprobe_events()   RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&uprobes_tree)
> > >
> > > -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(uprobes_treelock);    /* serialize rbtree access */
> > > +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(uprobes_treelock);      /* serialize rbtree access */
> > >
> > >  #define UPROBES_HASH_SZ      13
> > >  /* serialize uprobe->pending_list */
> > > @@ -669,9 +669,9 @@ static struct uprobe *find_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
> > >  {
> > >       struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > >
> > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >       uprobe = __find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >
> > >       return uprobe;
> > >  }
> > > @@ -701,9 +701,9 @@ static struct uprobe *insert_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> > >  {
> > >       struct uprobe *u;
> > >
> > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     write_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >       u = __insert_uprobe(uprobe);
> > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     write_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >
> > >       return u;
> > >  }
> > > @@ -935,9 +935,9 @@ static void delete_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> > >       if (WARN_ON(!uprobe_is_active(uprobe)))
> > >               return;
> > >
> > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     write_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >       rb_erase(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree);
> > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     write_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >       RB_CLEAR_NODE(&uprobe->rb_node); /* for uprobe_is_active() */
> > >       put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > >  }
> > > @@ -1298,7 +1298,7 @@ static void build_probe_list(struct inode *inode,
> > >       min = vaddr_to_offset(vma, start);
> > >       max = min + (end - start) - 1;
> > >
> > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >       n = find_node_in_range(inode, min, max);
> > >       if (n) {
> > >               for (t = n; t; t = rb_prev(t)) {
> > > @@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ static void build_probe_list(struct inode *inode,
> > >                       get_uprobe(u);
> > >               }
> > >       }
> > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  /* @vma contains reference counter, not the probed instruction. */
> > > @@ -1407,9 +1407,9 @@ vma_has_uprobes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long e
> > >       min = vaddr_to_offset(vma, start);
> > >       max = min + (end - start) - 1;
> > >
> > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >       n = find_node_in_range(inode, min, max);
> > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > +     read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > >
> > >       return !!n;
> > >  }
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>


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