From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@huawei.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: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:21:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYDvh2Ynrttk4NLyCGB8AVM2d-2tKSzRZF_cXVA80qucw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2336576e-1ed4-cd5e-5535-2d9b88218dae@huawei.com>
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/
>
> >
> >> + 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-10 21:21 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 [this message]
2024-07-11 2:05 ` Liao, Chang
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=CAEf4BzYDvh2Ynrttk4NLyCGB8AVM2d-2tKSzRZF_cXVA80qucw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.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=liaochang1@huawei.com \
--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).