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

From: Google
Date: Thu Apr 18 2024 - 20:43:55 EST

Next message: Alex Elder: "Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] net: ipa: maintain bitmap of suspend-enabled endpoints"
Previous message: Michael Ellerman: "Re: [PATCH net] MAINTAINERS: eth: mark IBM eHEA as an Orphan"
In reply to: Jonthan Haslam: "Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:10:59 +0100
Jonthan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Masami,
>
> > > > OK, then I'll push this to for-next at this moment.
> > > > Please share if you have a good idea for the batch interface which can be
> > > > backported. I guess it should involve updating userspace changes too.
> > >
> > > Did you (or anyone else) need anything more from me on this one so that it
> > > can be pushed? I provided some benchmark numbers but happy to provide
> > > anything else that may be required.
> >
> > Yeah, if you can update with the result, it looks better to me.
> > Or, can I update the description?
>
> Just checking if you need me to do anything on this so that it can be
> pushed to for-next? Would be really great if we can get this in. Thanks
> for all your help.

Yes, other uprobe performance improvements[1][2] have the benchmark results,
but this patch doesn't. If you update this with the benchmark results, it is
helpful to me.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240318181728.2795838-3-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240318181728.2795838-4-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/

Thank you,

>
> Jon.
>
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Jon.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you!
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I hope you can reconsider and accept improvements in this patch,
> > > > > > while Jonathan will keep working on even better final solution.
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I look forward to your formalized results :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, as part of BPF selftests, we have a multi-attach test for uprobes
> > > > > and USDTs, reporting attach/detach timings:
> > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t uprobe_multi_test/bench
> > > > > bpf_testmod.ko is already unloaded.
> > > > > Loading bpf_testmod.ko...
> > > > > Successfully loaded bpf_testmod.ko.
> > > > > test_bench_attach_uprobe:PASS:uprobe_multi_bench__open_and_load 0 nsec
> > > > > test_bench_attach_uprobe:PASS:uprobe_multi_bench__attach 0 nsec
> > > > > test_bench_attach_uprobe:PASS:uprobes_count 0 nsec
> > > > > test_bench_attach_uprobe: attached in 0.120s
> > > > > test_bench_attach_uprobe: detached in 0.092s
> > > > > #400/5 uprobe_multi_test/bench_uprobe:OK
> > > > > test_bench_attach_usdt:PASS:uprobe_multi__open 0 nsec
> > > > > test_bench_attach_usdt:PASS:bpf_program__attach_usdt 0 nsec
> > > > > test_bench_attach_usdt:PASS:usdt_count 0 nsec
> > > > > test_bench_attach_usdt: attached in 0.124s
> > > > > test_bench_attach_usdt: detached in 0.064s
> > > > > #400/6 uprobe_multi_test/bench_usdt:OK
> > > > > #400 uprobe_multi_test:OK
> > > > > Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> > > > > Successfully unloaded bpf_testmod.ko.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it should be easy for Jonathan to validate his changes with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jon.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
>

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

Next message: Alex Elder: "Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] net: ipa: maintain bitmap of suspend-enabled endpoints"
Previous message: Michael Ellerman: "Re: [PATCH net] MAINTAINERS: eth: mark IBM eHEA as an Orphan"
In reply to: Jonthan Haslam: "Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]