Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-150891-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:43:38 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Jonthan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@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>, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ian Rogers
 <irogers@google.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
 linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access
Message-Id: <20240419094338.5c1cc590399078fad6422a05@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <u6rrbsrjxpu43re5vb5o6vzvpxoto42wq47av3hagge6mfjsaj@25pujxi7z3u7>
References: <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>
	<CAEf4BzbSvMa2+hdTifMKTsNiOL6X=P7eor4LpPKfHM=Y9-71fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240330093631.72273967ba818cb16aeb58b6@kernel.org>
	<lcc6lnkbfnyr6yjvybckevhzaafvh7jmpse6tnviq5bjar3y6z@yvz6cuzjzrky>
	<20240411082156.6613cf4dc03129ea1183ab88@kernel.org>
	<u6rrbsrjxpu43re5vb5o6vzvpxoto42wq47av3hagge6mfjsaj@25pujxi7z3u7>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:10:59 +0100
Jonthan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com> 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@kernel.org/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240318181728.2795838-4-andrii@kernel.org/

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@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 = 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@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>