From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, shakeelb@google.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 22:28:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230821202829.2163744-1-mjguzik@gmail.com> (raw)
To start I figured I'm going to bench about as friendly case as it gets
-- statically linked *separate* binaries all doing execve in a loop.
I borrowed the bench from found here:
http://apollo.backplane.com/DFlyMisc/doexec.c
$ cc -static -O2 -o static-doexec doexec.c
$ ./static-doexec $(nproc)
It prints a result every second (warning: first line is garbage).
My test box is temporarily only 26 cores and even at this scale I run
into massive lock contention stemming from back-to-back calls to
percpu_counter_init (and _destroy later).
While not a panacea, one simple thing to do here is to batch these ops.
Since the term "batching" is already used in the file, I decided to
refer to it as "grouping" instead.
Even if this code could be patched to dodge these counters, I would
argue a high-traffic alloc/free consumer is only a matter of time so it
makes sense to facilitate it.
With the fix I get an ok win, to quote from the commit:
> Even at a very modest scale of 26 cores (ops/s):
> before: 133543.63
> after: 186061.81 (+39%)
> While with the patch these allocations remain a significant problem,
> the primary bottleneck shifts to:
>
> __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+1
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+57
> folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave+91
> release_pages+590
> tlb_batch_pages_flush+61
> tlb_finish_mmu+101
> exit_mmap+327
> __mmput+61
> begin_new_exec+1245
> load_elf_binary+712
> bprm_execve+644
> do_execveat_common.isra.0+429
> __x64_sys_execve+50
> do_syscall_64+46
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+110
I intend to do more work on the area to mostly sort it out, but I would
not mind if someone else took the hammer to folio. :)
With this out of the way I'll be looking at some form of caching to
eliminate these allocs as a problem.
Thoughts?
Mateusz Guzik (2):
pcpcntr: add group allocation/free
fork: group allocation of per-cpu counters for mm struct
include/linux/percpu_counter.h | 19 ++++++++---
kernel/fork.c | 13 ++------
lib/percpu_counter.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
--
2.39.2
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-21 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-21 20:28 Mateusz Guzik [this message]
2023-08-21 20:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] pcpcntr: add group allocation/free Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-22 13:37 ` Vegard Nossum
2023-08-22 14:06 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-22 17:02 ` Dennis Zhou
2023-08-21 20:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] fork: group allocation of per-cpu counters for mm struct Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-21 21:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-21 20:42 ` [PATCH 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1 Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 1/7] mm: Make folios_put() the basis of release_pages() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 2/7] mm: Convert free_unref_page_list() to use folios Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 3/7] mm: Add free_unref_folios() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 4/7] mm: Use folios_put() in __folio_batch_release() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 5/7] memcg: Add mem_cgroup_uncharge_batch() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 6/7] mm: Remove use of folio list from folios_put() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 20:44 ` [PATCH 7/7] mm: Use free_unref_folios() in put_pages_list() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2023-08-21 21:07 ` [PATCH 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1 Dennis Zhou
2023-08-21 21:39 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-21 22:29 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-22 9:51 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-22 14:24 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-23 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-23 10:49 ` David Laight
2023-08-23 12:01 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-23 12:13 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-23 15:47 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-23 16:10 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-23 16:41 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-23 17:12 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-08-23 20:27 ` Dennis Zhou
2023-08-24 9:19 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-26 18:33 ` Mateusz Guzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230821202829.2163744-1-mjguzik@gmail.com \
--to=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.