From: "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@huawei.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: <peterz@infradead.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <acme@kernel.org>,
<namhyung@kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
<alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, <jolsa@kernel.org>,
<irogers@google.com>, <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
<kan.liang@linux.intel.com>, <ast@kernel.org>,
<daniel@iogearbox.net>, <andrii@kernel.org>,
<martin.lau@linux.dev>, <eddyz87@gmail.com>, <song@kernel.org>,
<yonghong.song@linux.dev>, <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
<kpsingh@kernel.org>, <sdf@fomichev.me>, <haoluo@google.com>,
<mykolal@fb.com>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] uprobes: Optimize the return_instance related routines
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:05:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <993a2fa6-b40e-b85c-ea87-e7940db11d3d@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYDvh2Ynrttk4NLyCGB8AVM2d-2tKSzRZF_cXVA80qucw@mail.gmail.com>
在 2024/7/11 5:21, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:19 AM Liao, Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2024/7/10 7:55, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 6:00 PM Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Reduce the runtime overhead for struct return_instance data managed by
>>>> uretprobe. This patch replaces the dynamic allocation with statically
>>>> allocated array, leverage two facts that are limited nesting depth of
>>>> uretprobe (max 64) and the function call style of return_instance usage
>>>> (create at entry, free at exit).
>>>>
>>>> This patch has been tested on Kunpeng916 (Hi1616), 4 NUMA nodes, 64
>>>> cores @ 2.4GHz. Redis benchmarks show a throughput gain by 2% for Redis
>>>> GET and SET commands:
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Test case | No uretprobes | uretprobes | uretprobes
>>>> | | (current) | (optimized)
>>>> ==================================================================
>>>> Redis SET (RPS) | 47025 | 40619 (-13.6%) | 41529 (-11.6%)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Redis GET (RPS) | 46715 | 41426 (-11.3%) | 42306 (-9.4%)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/uprobes.h | 10 ++-
>>>> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>> 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +static void cleanup_return_instances(struct uprobe_task *utask, bool chained,
>>>> + struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct return_frame *frame = &utask->frame;
>>>> + struct return_instance *ri = frame->return_instance;
>>>> + enum rp_check ctx = chained ? RP_CHECK_CHAIN_CALL : RP_CHECK_CALL;
>>>> +
>>>> + while (ri && !arch_uretprobe_is_alive(ri, ctx, regs)) {
>>>> + ri = next_ret_instance(frame, ri);
>>>> + utask->depth--;
>>>> + }
>>>> + frame->return_instance = ri;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(struct uprobe_task *task)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct return_frame *frame = &task->frame;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!frame->vaddr) {
>>>> + frame->vaddr = kcalloc(MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH,
>>>> + sizeof(struct return_instance), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> Are you just pre-allocating MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH instances always?
>>> I.e., even if we need just one (because there is no recursion), you'd
>>> still waste memory for all 64 ones?
>>
>> This is the truth. On my testing machines, each struct return_instance data
>> is 28 bytes, resulting in a total pre-allocated 1792 bytes when the first
>> instrumented function is hit.
>>
>>>
>>> That seems rather wasteful.
>>>
>>> Have you considered using objpool for fast reuse across multiple CPUs?
>>> Check lib/objpool.c.
>>
>> After studying how kretprobe uses objpool, I'm convinced it is a right solution for
>> managing return_instance in uretporbe. While I need some time to fully understand
>> the objpool code itself and run some benchmark to verify its performance.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Keep in mind that there are two patch sets under development/review,
> both of which touch this code. [0] will make return_instance
> variable-sized, so think how to accommodate that. And [1] in general
> touches a bunch of this code. So I'd let those two settle and land
> before optimizing return_instance allocations further.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/20240701164115.723677-1-jolsa@kernel.org/
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20240708091241.544262971@infradead.org/
Thanks for letting me know. I've made a note to track the progress of these patch sets.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + if (!frame->vaddr)
>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!frame->return_instance) {
>>>> + frame->return_instance = frame->vaddr;
>>>> + return frame->return_instance;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return ++frame->return_instance;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline bool return_frame_empty(struct uprobe_task *task)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return !task->frame.return_instance;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> --
>> BR
>> Liao, Chang
--
BR
Liao, Chang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-11 2:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-09 0:51 [PATCH 0/2] Optimize the return_instance management of uretprobe Liao Chang
2024-07-09 0:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] uprobes: Optimize the return_instance related routines Liao Chang
2024-07-09 23:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-10 8:19 ` Liao, Chang
2024-07-10 21:21 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-11 2:05 ` Liao, Chang [this message]
2024-07-09 0:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add uretprobe test for return_instance management Liao Chang
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=993a2fa6-b40e-b85c-ea87-e7940db11d3d@huawei.com \
--to=liaochang1@huawei.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mykolal@fb.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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).