From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BC8C433FE for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 18:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229933AbiKHSmK (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:42:10 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52612 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230235AbiKHSmJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:42:09 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3783F49B5C for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A16F661737 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 18:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1164FC433D6 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 18:42:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1667932927; bh=VJAwuyxsGnX9T/CuJoUiv0JIp/8sdszXqnZqCabXHuc=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=m9hcOdX03SD97m5xalRYGfH972XJNx+aNMMHRrkdB/51qSLZfzJt+JOBMu68rfDhe Jait5MgBls7BNzGouv67Fb0xwNCWwDMlXiUpu5EilRYrnJwY6qm7aiwh6OJbfXjNoc jIWS+ablvshWmUSX2UK6LDJtdJNhf2wwpWh6ctJOiIn/uLNep+9kqlj6+asDX2EvCM qupW4eZ/GTuR7TtoaG4FUOlBaQhYtWNnNO8BbnTvXS+i83LKWnW61lFVuMVUNHo9ib fETHMLFZ9u7NbLKPT4Gt5cwmet+a8aapeY3gMl/2iDPq5TuSF8fI+b9Ww8qdgUqaxX WeOdz0h3DP1pA== Received: by mail-ed1-f48.google.com with SMTP id a5so23833037edb.11 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2022 10:42:06 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1R2SdlGOo5OKCh2tVbdswPxCZ8yy+ofKSEW0g4a51SApJ7MvgM wxToMA0VoRI+eYUMRCkZ2p6cgQltaFDOZwBxPXs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7kEGrvOjD+TOh9L6vFVQJHwuRPR01aB5LuIqreLOn2To3UKuyZ6w3bXxSGwhz0ndaxxDOAJjDYy0ie83obdHk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1690:b0:45f:d702:9919 with SMTP id a16-20020a056402169000b0045fd7029919mr57214673edv.127.1667932925251; Tue, 08 Nov 2022 10:42:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221107223921.3451913-1-song@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Song Liu Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:41:53 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] execmem_alloc for BPF programs To: Mike Rapoport Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, hch@lst.de, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, aaron.lu@intel.com, mcgrof@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 3:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi Song, > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 02:39:16PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > This patchset tries to address the following issues: > > > > 1. Direct map fragmentation > > > > On x86, STRICT_*_RWX requires the direct map of any RO+X memory to be also > > RO+X. These set_memory_* calls cause 1GB page table entries to be split > > into 2MB and 4kB ones. This fragmentation in direct map results in bigger > > and slower page table, and pressure for both instruction and data TLB. > > > > Our previous work in bpf_prog_pack tries to address this issue from BPF > > program side. Based on the experiments by Aaron Lu [4], bpf_prog_pack has > > greatly reduced direct map fragmentation from BPF programs. > > Usage of set_memory_* APIs with memory allocated from vmalloc/modules > virtual range does not change the direct map, but only updates the > permissions in vmalloc range. The direct map splits occur in > vm_remove_mappings() when the memory is *freed*. > > That said, both bpf_prog_pack and these patches do reduce the > fragmentation, but this happens because the memory is freed to the system > in 2M chunks and there are no splits of 2M pages. Besides, since the same > 2M page used for many BPF programs there should be way less vfree() calls. > > > 2. iTLB pressure from BPF program > > > > Dynamic kernel text such as modules and BPF programs (even with current > > bpf_prog_pack) use 4kB pages on x86, when the total size of modules and > > BPF program is big, we can see visible performance drop caused by high > > iTLB miss rate. > > Like Luis mentioned several times already, it would be nice to see numbers. > > > 3. TLB shootdown for short-living BPF programs > > > > Before bpf_prog_pack loading and unloading BPF programs requires global > > TLB shootdown. This patchset (and bpf_prog_pack) replaces it with a local > > TLB flush. > > > > 4. Reduce memory usage by BPF programs (in some cases) > > > > Most BPF programs and various trampolines are small, and they often > > occupies a whole page. From a random server in our fleet, 50% of the > > loaded BPF programs are less than 500 byte in size, and 75% of them are > > less than 2kB in size. Allowing these BPF programs to share 2MB pages > > would yield some memory saving for systems with many BPF programs. For > > systems with only small number of BPF programs, this patch may waste a > > little memory by allocating one 2MB page, but using only part of it. > > I'm not convinced there are memory savings here. Unless you have hundreds > of BPF programs, most of 2M page will be wasted, won't it? > So for systems that have moderate use of BPF most of the 2M page will be > unused, right? There will be some memory waste in such cases. But it will get better with: 1) With 4/5 and 5/5, BPF programs will share this 2MB page with kernel .text section (_stext to _etext); 2) modules, ftrace, kprobe will also share this 2MB page; 3) There are bigger BPF programs in many use cases. > > > Based on our experiments [5], we measured 0.5% performance improvement > > from bpf_prog_pack. This patchset further boosts the improvement to 0.7%. > > The difference is because bpf_prog_pack uses 512x 4kB pages instead of > > 1x 2MB page, bpf_prog_pack as-is doesn't resolve #2 above. > > > > This patchset replaces bpf_prog_pack with a better API and makes it > > available for other dynamic kernel text, such as modules, ftrace, kprobe. > > The proposed execmem_alloc() looks to me very much tailored for x86 to be > used as a replacement for module_alloc(). Some architectures have > module_alloc() that is quite different from the default or x86 version, so > I'd expect at least some explanation how modules etc can use execmem_ APIs > without breaking !x86 architectures. > > > This set enables bpf programs and bpf dispatchers to share huge pages with > > new API: > > execmem_alloc() > > execmem_alloc() > > execmem_fill() > > > > The idea is similar to Peter's suggestion in [1]. > > > > execmem_alloc() manages a set of PMD_SIZE RO+X memory, and allocates these > > memory to its users. execmem_alloc() is used to free memory allocated by > > execmem_alloc(). execmem_fill() is used to update memory allocated by > > execmem_alloc(). > > > > Memory allocated by execmem_alloc() is RO+X, so this doesnot violate W^X. > > The caller has to update the content with text_poke like mechanism. > > Specifically, execmem_fill() is provided to update memory allocated by > > execmem_alloc(). execmem_fill() also makes sure the update stays in the > > boundary of one chunk allocated by execmem_alloc(). Please refer to patch > > 1/5 for more details of > > Unless I'm mistaken, a failure to allocate PMD_SIZE page will fail text > allocation altogether. That means that if somebody tries to load a BFP > program on a busy long lived system, they are quite likely to fail because > high order free lists might be already exhausted although there is still > plenty of free memory. > > Did you consider a fallback for small pages if the high order allocation > fails? I think __vmalloc_node_range() already has the fallback mechanism. (the end of the function). Thanks, Song