[PATCH v2 0/2] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock

[PATCH v2 0/2] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock

[Liao Chang]

The profiling result of BPF selftest on ARM64 platform reveals the
significant contention on the current->sighand->siglock is the
scalability bottleneck. The reason is also very straightforward that all
producer threads of benchmark have to contend the spinlock mentioned to
resume the TIF_SIGPENDING bit in thread_info that might be removed in
uprobe_deny_signal().

The contention on current->sighand->siglock is unnecessary, this series
remove them thoroughly. I've use the script developed by Andrii in [1]
to run benchmark. The CPU used was Kunpeng916 (Hi1616), 4 NUMA nodes,
64 cores@2.4GHz running the kernel on next tree + the optimization in
[2] for get_xol_insn_slot().

before-opt
----------
uprobe-nop      ( 1 cpus):    0.907 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.907M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 2 cpus):    1.676 ± 0.008M/s  (  0.838M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 4 cpus):    3.210 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.802M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 8 cpus):    4.457 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.557M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (16 cpus):    3.724 ± 0.011M/s  (  0.233M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (32 cpus):    2.761 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.086M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (64 cpus):    1.293 ± 0.015M/s  (  0.020M/s/cpu)

uprobe-push     ( 1 cpus):    0.883 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.883M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 2 cpus):    1.642 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.821M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 4 cpus):    3.086 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.771M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 8 cpus):    3.390 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.424M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (16 cpus):    2.652 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.166M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (32 cpus):    2.713 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.085M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (64 cpus):    1.313 ± 0.009M/s  (  0.021M/s/cpu)

uprobe-ret      ( 1 cpus):    1.774 ± 0.000M/s  (  1.774M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 2 cpus):    3.350 ± 0.001M/s  (  1.675M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 4 cpus):    6.604 ± 0.000M/s  (  1.651M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 8 cpus):    6.706 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.838M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (16 cpus):    5.231 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.327M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (32 cpus):    5.743 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.179M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (64 cpus):    4.726 ± 0.016M/s  (  0.074M/s/cpu)

after-opt
---------
uprobe-nop      ( 1 cpus):    0.985 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.985M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 2 cpus):    1.773 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.887M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 4 cpus):    3.304 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.826M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 8 cpus):    5.328 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.666M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (16 cpus):    6.475 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.405M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (32 cpus):    4.831 ± 0.082M/s  (  0.151M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (64 cpus):    2.564 ± 0.053M/s  (  0.040M/s/cpu)

uprobe-push     ( 1 cpus):    0.964 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.964M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 2 cpus):    1.766 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.883M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 4 cpus):    3.290 ± 0.009M/s  (  0.823M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 8 cpus):    4.670 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.584M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (16 cpus):    5.197 ± 0.004M/s  (  0.325M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (32 cpus):    5.068 ± 0.161M/s  (  0.158M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (64 cpus):    2.605 ± 0.026M/s  (  0.041M/s/cpu)

uprobe-ret      ( 1 cpus):    1.833 ± 0.001M/s  (  1.833M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 2 cpus):    3.384 ± 0.003M/s  (  1.692M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 4 cpus):    6.677 ± 0.004M/s  (  1.669M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 8 cpus):    6.854 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.857M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (16 cpus):    6.508 ± 0.006M/s  (  0.407M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (32 cpus):    5.793 ± 0.009M/s  (  0.181M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (64 cpus):    4.743 ± 0.016M/s  (  0.074M/s/cpu)

Above benchmark results demonstrates a obivious improvement in the
scalability of trig-uprobe-nop and trig-uprobe-push, the peak throughput
of which are from 4.5M/s to 6.4M/s and 3.3M/s to 5.1M/s individually.

v2->v1:
Oleg pointed out the _DENY_SIGNAL will be replaced by _ACK upon the
completion of singlestep which leads to handle_singlestep() has no
chance to restore the removed TIF_SIGPENDING [3] and some case in
question. So this revision proposes to use a flag in uprobe_task to
track the denied TIF_SIGPENDING instead of new UPROBE_SSTEP state.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240731214256.3588718-1-andrii@kernel.org
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240727094405.1362496-1-liaochang1@huawei.com
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240801082407.1618451-1-liaochang1@huawei.com

Liao Chang (2):
  uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()
  uprobes: Remove the spinlock within handle_singlestep()

 include/linux/uprobes.h |  1 +
 kernel/events/uprobes.c | 10 +++++-----
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()

[Liao Chang]

Since clearing a bit in thread_info is an atomic operation, the spinlock
is redundant and can be removed, reducing lock contention is good for
performance.

Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/events/uprobes.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 73cc47708679..76a51a1f51e2 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1979,9 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);
 
 	if (task_sigpending(t)) {
-		spin_lock_irq(&t->sighand->siglock);
 		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
-		spin_unlock_irq(&t->sighand->siglock);
 
 		if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
 			utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED;
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/09, Liao Chang wrote:
>
> Since clearing a bit in thread_info is an atomic operation, the spinlock
> is redundant and can be removed, reducing lock contention is good for
> performance.

My ack still stays, but let me add some notes...

sighand->siglock doesn't protect clear_bit() per se. It was used to not
break the "the state of TIF_SIGPENDING of every thread is stable with
sighand->siglock held" rule.

But we already have the lockless users of clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)
(some if not most of them look buggy), and afaics in this (very special)
case it should be fine.

Oleg.

> Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 73cc47708679..76a51a1f51e2 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1979,9 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);
>  
>  	if (task_sigpending(t)) {
> -		spin_lock_irq(&t->sighand->siglock);
>  		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
> -		spin_unlock_irq(&t->sighand->siglock);
>  
>  		if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
>  			utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()

[Liao, Chang]

在 2024/8/12 20:07, Oleg Nesterov 写道:
> On 08/09, Liao Chang wrote:
>>
>> Since clearing a bit in thread_info is an atomic operation, the spinlock
>> is redundant and can be removed, reducing lock contention is good for
>> performance.
> 
> My ack still stays, but let me add some notes...
> 
> sighand->siglock doesn't protect clear_bit() per se. It was used to not
> break the "the state of TIF_SIGPENDING of every thread is stable with
> sighand->siglock held" rule.
> 
> But we already have the lockless users of clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)
> (some if not most of them look buggy), and afaics in this (very special)
> case it should be fine.

Oleg, your explaination is more accurate. So I will reword the commit log and
quote some of your note like this:

  Since we already have the lockless user of clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING).
  And for uprobe singlestep case, it doesn't break the rule of "the state of
  TIF_SIGPENDING of every thread is stable with sighand->siglock held". So
  removing sighand->siglock to reduce contention for better performance.

> 
> Oleg.
> 
>> Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/events/uprobes.c | 2 --
>>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> index 73cc47708679..76a51a1f51e2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> @@ -1979,9 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
>>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);
>>  
>>  	if (task_sigpending(t)) {
>> -		spin_lock_irq(&t->sighand->siglock);
>>  		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
>> -		spin_unlock_irq(&t->sighand->siglock);
>>  
>>  		if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
>>  			utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED;
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>
> 
> 

-- 
BR
Liao, Chang

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/13, Liao, Chang wrote:
>
>
> Oleg, your explaination is more accurate. So I will reword the commit log and
> quote some of your note like this:

Oh, please don't. I just tried to explain the history of this spin_lock(siglock).

>   Since we already have the lockless user of clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING).
>   And for uprobe singlestep case, it doesn't break the rule of "the state of
>   TIF_SIGPENDING of every thread is stable with sighand->siglock held".

It obviously does break the rule above. Please keep your changelog as is.

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 5:47 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/13, Liao, Chang wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oleg, your explaination is more accurate. So I will reword the commit log and
> > quote some of your note like this:
>
> Oh, please don't. I just tried to explain the history of this spin_lock(siglock).
>
> >   Since we already have the lockless user of clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING).
> >   And for uprobe singlestep case, it doesn't break the rule of "the state of
> >   TIF_SIGPENDING of every thread is stable with sighand->siglock held".
>
> It obviously does break the rule above. Please keep your changelog as is.
>
> Oleg.
>

Liao,

Can you please rebase and resend your patches now that the first part
of my uprobe patches landed in perf/core? Seems like there is some
tiny merge conflict or something.

Thanks!

[PATCH v2 2/2] uprobes: Remove the spinlock within handle_singlestep()

[Liao Chang]

This patch introduces a flag to track TIF_SIGPENDING is suppress
temporarily during the uprobe single-step. Upon uprobe singlestep is
handled and the flag is confirmed, it could resume the TIF_SIGPENDING
directly without acquiring the siglock in most case, then reducing
contention and improving overall performance.

I've use the script developed by Andrii in [1] to run benchmark. The CPU
used was Kunpeng916 (Hi1616), 4 NUMA nodes, 64 cores@2.4GHz running the
kernel on next tree + the optimization for get_xol_insn_slot() [2].

before-opt
----------
uprobe-nop      ( 1 cpus):    0.907 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.907M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 2 cpus):    1.676 ± 0.008M/s  (  0.838M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 4 cpus):    3.210 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.802M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 8 cpus):    4.457 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.557M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (16 cpus):    3.724 ± 0.011M/s  (  0.233M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (32 cpus):    2.761 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.086M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (64 cpus):    1.293 ± 0.015M/s  (  0.020M/s/cpu)

uprobe-push     ( 1 cpus):    0.883 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.883M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 2 cpus):    1.642 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.821M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 4 cpus):    3.086 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.771M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 8 cpus):    3.390 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.424M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (16 cpus):    2.652 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.166M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (32 cpus):    2.713 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.085M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (64 cpus):    1.313 ± 0.009M/s  (  0.021M/s/cpu)

uprobe-ret      ( 1 cpus):    1.774 ± 0.000M/s  (  1.774M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 2 cpus):    3.350 ± 0.001M/s  (  1.675M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 4 cpus):    6.604 ± 0.000M/s  (  1.651M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 8 cpus):    6.706 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.838M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (16 cpus):    5.231 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.327M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (32 cpus):    5.743 ± 0.003M/s  (  0.179M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (64 cpus):    4.726 ± 0.016M/s  (  0.074M/s/cpu)

after-opt
---------
uprobe-nop      ( 1 cpus):    0.985 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.985M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 2 cpus):    1.773 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.887M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 4 cpus):    3.304 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.826M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      ( 8 cpus):    5.328 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.666M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (16 cpus):    6.475 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.405M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (32 cpus):    4.831 ± 0.082M/s  (  0.151M/s/cpu)
uprobe-nop      (64 cpus):    2.564 ± 0.053M/s  (  0.040M/s/cpu)

uprobe-push     ( 1 cpus):    0.964 ± 0.001M/s  (  0.964M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 2 cpus):    1.766 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.883M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 4 cpus):    3.290 ± 0.009M/s  (  0.823M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     ( 8 cpus):    4.670 ± 0.002M/s  (  0.584M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (16 cpus):    5.197 ± 0.004M/s  (  0.325M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (32 cpus):    5.068 ± 0.161M/s  (  0.158M/s/cpu)
uprobe-push     (64 cpus):    2.605 ± 0.026M/s  (  0.041M/s/cpu)

uprobe-ret      ( 1 cpus):    1.833 ± 0.001M/s  (  1.833M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 2 cpus):    3.384 ± 0.003M/s  (  1.692M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 4 cpus):    6.677 ± 0.004M/s  (  1.669M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      ( 8 cpus):    6.854 ± 0.005M/s  (  0.857M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (16 cpus):    6.508 ± 0.006M/s  (  0.407M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (32 cpus):    5.793 ± 0.009M/s  (  0.181M/s/cpu)
uprobe-ret      (64 cpus):    4.743 ± 0.016M/s  (  0.074M/s/cpu)

Above benchmark results demonstrates a obivious improvement in the
scalability of trig-uprobe-nop and trig-uprobe-push, the peak throughput
of which are from 4.5M/s to 6.4M/s and 3.3M/s to 5.1M/s individually.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240731214256.3588718-1-andrii@kernel.org
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240727094405.1362496-1-liaochang1@huawei.com

Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
---
 include/linux/uprobes.h | 1 +
 kernel/events/uprobes.c | 8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
index b503fafb7fb3..49403e68307b 100644
--- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct uprobe_task {
 
 	struct uprobe			*active_uprobe;
 	unsigned long			xol_vaddr;
+	bool				deny_signal;
 
 	struct return_instance		*return_instances;
 	unsigned int			depth;
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 76a51a1f51e2..77934fbd1370 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1979,6 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);
 
 	if (task_sigpending(t)) {
+		utask->deny_signal = true;
 		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
 
 		if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
@@ -2288,9 +2289,10 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
 	utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
 	xol_free_insn_slot(current);
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
-	recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
-	spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
+	if (utask->deny_signal) {
+		set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
+		utask->deny_signal = false;
+	}
 
 	if (unlikely(err)) {
 		uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] uprobes: Remove the spinlock within handle_singlestep()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/09, Liao Chang wrote:
>
> --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
> +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct uprobe_task {
>  
>  	struct uprobe			*active_uprobe;
>  	unsigned long			xol_vaddr;
> +	bool				deny_signal;

Ack, but... I can't believe I am arguing with the naming ;)
Can we have a better name for this flag?

	utask->signal_denied ?
	utask->restore_sigpending ?

or just

	utask->sigpending ?

utask->deny_signal looks as if handle_singlestep/whatever should
"deny" the pending signal cleared by uprobe_deny_signal(), while
it fact it should restore TIF_SIGPENDING.

Oleg.

>  
>  	struct return_instance		*return_instances;
>  	unsigned int			depth;
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 76a51a1f51e2..77934fbd1370 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1979,6 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);
>  
>  	if (task_sigpending(t)) {
> +		utask->deny_signal = true;
>  		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
>  
>  		if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
> @@ -2288,9 +2289,10 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
>  	xol_free_insn_slot(current);
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> -	recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
> -	spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> +	if (utask->deny_signal) {
> +		set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> +		utask->deny_signal = false;
> +	}
>  
>  	if (unlikely(err)) {
>  		uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] uprobes: Remove the spinlock within handle_singlestep()

[Liao, Chang]

在 2024/8/12 19:29, Oleg Nesterov 写道:
> On 08/09, Liao Chang wrote:
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
>> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct uprobe_task {
>>  
>>  	struct uprobe			*active_uprobe;
>>  	unsigned long			xol_vaddr;
>> +	bool				deny_signal;
> 
> Ack, but... I can't believe I am arguing with the naming ;)
> Can we have a better name for this flag?
> 
> 	utask->signal_denied ?
> 	utask->restore_sigpending ?

I prefer the name "signal_denied" as it more accurately reflects
what happened.

> 
> or just
> 
> 	utask->sigpending ?
> 
> utask->deny_signal looks as if handle_singlestep/whatever should
> "deny" the pending signal cleared by uprobe_deny_signal(), while
> it fact it should restore TIF_SIGPENDING.

Make sense. I will change the name in v3.

> 
> Oleg.
> 
>>  
>>  	struct return_instance		*return_instances;
>>  	unsigned int			depth;
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> index 76a51a1f51e2..77934fbd1370 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> @@ -1979,6 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
>>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);
>>  
>>  	if (task_sigpending(t)) {
>> +		utask->deny_signal = true;
>>  		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
>>  
>>  		if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
>> @@ -2288,9 +2289,10 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  	utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
>>  	xol_free_insn_slot(current);
>>  
>> -	spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
>> -	recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
>> -	spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
>> +	if (utask->deny_signal) {
>> +		set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
>> +		utask->deny_signal = false;
>> +	}
>>  
>>  	if (unlikely(err)) {
>>  		uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>
> 
> 

-- 
BR
Liao, Chang