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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).