Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] uprobes: add batched register/unregister APIs and per-CPU RW semaphore

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:47:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

> > As you noted, that percpu-rwsem write side is quite insane. And you're
> > creating this batch complexity to mitigate that.
> 
> 
> Note that batch API is needed regardless of percpu RW semaphore or
> not. As I mentioned, once uprobes_treelock is mitigated one way or the
> other, the next one is uprobe->register_rwsem. For scalability, we
> need to get rid of it and preferably not add any locking at all. So
> tentatively I'd like to have lockless RCU-protected iteration over
> uprobe->consumers list and call consumer->handler(). This means that
> on uprobes_unregister we'd need synchronize_rcu (for whatever RCU
> flavor we end up using), to ensure that we don't free uprobe_consumer
> memory from under handle_swbp() while it is actually triggering
> consumers.
> 
> So, without batched unregistration we'll be back to the same problem
> I'm solving here: doing synchronize_rcu() for each attached uprobe one
> by one is prohibitively slow. We went through this exercise with
> ftrace/kprobes already and fixed it with batched APIs. Doing that for
> uprobes seems unavoidable as well.

I'm not immediately seeing how you need that terrible refcount stuff for
the batching though. If all you need is group a few unregisters together
in order to share a sync_rcu() that seems way overkill.

You seem to have muddled the order of things, which makes the actual
reason for doing things utterly unclear.