Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-125250-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240321145736.2373846-1-jonathan.haslam@gmail.com>
 <20240325120323.ec3248d330b2755e73a6571e@kernel.org> <CAEf4BzZS_QCsSY0oGY_3pGveGfXKK_TkVURyNq=UQXVXSqi2Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240327084245.a890ae12e579f0be1902ae4a@kernel.org> <54jakntmdyedadce7yrf6kljcjapbwyoqqt26dnllrqvs3pg7x@itra4a2ikgqw>
 <20240328091841.ce9cc613db375536de843cfb@kernel.org> <CAEf4BzYCJWXAzdV3q5ex+8hj5ZFCnu5CT=w8eDbZCGqm+CGYOQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYCJWXAzdV3q5ex+8hj5ZFCnu5CT=w8eDbZCGqm+CGYOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:33:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbSvMa2+hdTifMKTsNiOL6X=P7eor4LpPKfHM=Y9-71fw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Jonthan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com>, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	andrii@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, 
	Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, 
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 5:45=E2=80=AFPM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 5:18=E2=80=AFPM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel=
org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:06:01 +0000
> > Jonthan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Masami,
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the discussion around per-cpu rw semaphore and need for
> > > > > (internal) batched attachment API for uprobes, do you think you c=
an
> > > > > apply this patch as is for now? We can then gain initial improvem=
ents
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > My initial tests show a nice improvement on the over RW spinlocks but
> > > significant regression in acquiring a write lock. I've got a few days
> > > vacation over Easter but I'll aim to get some more formalised results=
 out
> > > to the thread toward the end of next week.
> >
> > As far as the write lock is only on the cold path, I think you can choo=
se
> > per-cpu RW semaphore. Since it does not do busy wait, the total system
> > performance impact will be small.
>
> No, Masami, unfortunately it's not as simple. In BPF we have BPF
> multi-uprobe, which can be used to attach to thousands of user
> functions. It currently creates one uprobe at a time, as we don't
> really have a batched API. If each such uprobe registration will now
> take a (relatively) long time, when multiplied by number of attach-to
> user functions, it will be a horrible regression in terms of
> attachment/detachment performance.
>
> So when we switch to per-CPU rw semaphore, we'll need to provide an
> internal batch uprobe attach/detach API to make sure that attaching to
> multiple uprobes is still fast.
>
> Which is why I was asking to land this patch as is, as it relieves the
> scalability pains in production and is easy to backport to old
> kernels. And then we can work on batched APIs and switch to per-CPU rw
> semaphore.
>
> 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 overhea=
d
> > > > > > 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@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  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 =3D RB_R=
OOT;
> > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > >  #define no_uprobe_events()   RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&uprobes_tree)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(uprobes_treelock);    /* serialize rb=
tree access */
> > > > > > > +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(uprobes_treelock);      /* serialize rb=
tree 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 =3D __find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> > > > > > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > > +     read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >       return uprobe;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > @@ -701,9 +701,9 @@ static struct uprobe *insert_uprobe(struc=
t uprobe *uprobe)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >       struct uprobe *u;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > > +     write_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > >       u =3D __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_activ=
e() */
> > > > > > >       put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > @@ -1298,7 +1298,7 @@ static void build_probe_list(struct ino=
de *inode,
> > > > > > >       min =3D vaddr_to_offset(vma, start);
> > > > > > >       max =3D min + (end - start) - 1;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > > +     read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > >       n =3D find_node_in_range(inode, min, max);
> > > > > > >       if (n) {
> > > > > > >               for (t =3D n; t; t =3D rb_prev(t)) {
> > > > > > > @@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ static void build_probe_list(struct ino=
de *inode,
> > > > > > >                       get_uprobe(u);
> > > > > > >               }
> > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > > +     read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  /* @vma contains reference counter, not the probed instructi=
on. */
> > > > > > > @@ -1407,9 +1407,9 @@ vma_has_uprobes(struct vm_area_struct *=
vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long e
> > > > > > >       min =3D vaddr_to_offset(vma, start);
> > > > > > >       max =3D min + (end - start) - 1;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -     spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > > +     read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > >       n =3D find_node_in_range(inode, min, max);
> > > > > > > -     spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > > +     read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >       return !!n;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.43.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>