From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Jonathan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:03:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240325120323.ec3248d330b2755e73a6571e@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240321145736.2373846-1-jonathan.haslam@gmail.com>
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:57:35 -0700
Jonathan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Active uprobes are stored in an RB tree and accesses to this tree are
> dominated by read operations. Currently these accesses are serialized by
> a spinlock but this leads to enormous contention when large numbers of
> threads are executing active probes.
>
> This patch converts the spinlock used to serialize access to the
> uprobes_tree RB tree into a reader-writer spinlock. This lock type
> aligns naturally with the overwhelmingly read-only nature of the tree
> usage here. Although the addition of reader-writer spinlocks are
> discouraged [0], this fix is proposed as an interim solution while an
> RCU based approach is implemented (that work is in a nascent form). This
> fix also has the benefit of being trivial, self contained and therefore
> simple to backport.
>
> This change has been tested against production workloads that exhibit
> significant contention on the spinlock and an almost order of magnitude
> reduction for mean uprobe execution time is observed (28 -> 3.5 microsecs).
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
BTW, how did you measure the overhead? I think spinlock overhead
will depend on how much lock contention happens.
Thank you,
>
> [0] https://docs.kernel.org/locking/spinlocks.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 929e98c62965..42bf9b6e8bc0 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static struct rb_root uprobes_tree = RB_ROOT;
> */
> #define no_uprobe_events() RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&uprobes_tree)
>
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(uprobes_treelock); /* serialize rbtree access */
> +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(uprobes_treelock); /* serialize rbtree access */
>
> #define UPROBES_HASH_SZ 13
> /* serialize uprobe->pending_list */
> @@ -669,9 +669,9 @@ static struct uprobe *find_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
> {
> struct uprobe *uprobe;
>
> - spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> uprobe = __find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> - spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
>
> return uprobe;
> }
> @@ -701,9 +701,9 @@ static struct uprobe *insert_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> {
> struct uprobe *u;
>
> - spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + write_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> u = __insert_uprobe(uprobe);
> - spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + write_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
>
> return u;
> }
> @@ -935,9 +935,9 @@ static void delete_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> if (WARN_ON(!uprobe_is_active(uprobe)))
> return;
>
> - spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + write_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> rb_erase(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree);
> - spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + write_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> RB_CLEAR_NODE(&uprobe->rb_node); /* for uprobe_is_active() */
> put_uprobe(uprobe);
> }
> @@ -1298,7 +1298,7 @@ static void build_probe_list(struct inode *inode,
> min = vaddr_to_offset(vma, start);
> max = min + (end - start) - 1;
>
> - spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> n = find_node_in_range(inode, min, max);
> if (n) {
> for (t = n; t; t = rb_prev(t)) {
> @@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ static void build_probe_list(struct inode *inode,
> get_uprobe(u);
> }
> }
> - spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> }
>
> /* @vma contains reference counter, not the probed instruction. */
> @@ -1407,9 +1407,9 @@ vma_has_uprobes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long e
> min = vaddr_to_offset(vma, start);
> max = min + (end - start) - 1;
>
> - spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + read_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> n = find_node_in_range(inode, min, max);
> - spin_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> + read_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
>
> return !!n;
> }
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-25 3:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-21 14:57 [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access Jonathan Haslam
2024-03-21 16:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-24 3:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-03-25 19:12 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-03-25 23:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-26 11:55 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-03-25 3:03 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2024-03-25 19:04 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-03-26 23:42 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-03-26 16:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-26 23:42 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-03-27 17:06 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-03-28 0:18 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-03-28 0:45 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-29 17:33 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-30 0:36 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-03-30 5:26 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-10 10:38 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-04-10 23:21 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-04-11 8:41 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-04-18 11:10 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-04-19 0:43 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-04-03 11:05 ` Jonthan Haslam
2024-04-03 17:50 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-04 10:45 ` Jonthan Haslam
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=20240325120323.ec3248d330b2755e73a6571e@kernel.org \
--to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jonathan.haslam@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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