From: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <kernel-team@fb.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Subject: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 6/6] bpf: runqslower: use task local storage Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 15:43:19 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210225234319.336131-7-songliubraving@fb.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210225234319.336131-1-songliubraving@fb.com> Replace hashtab with task local storage in runqslower. This improves the performance of these BPF programs. The following table summarizes average runtime of these programs, in nanoseconds: task-local hash-prealloc hash-no-prealloc handle__sched_wakeup 125 340 3124 handle__sched_wakeup_new 2812 1510 2998 handle__sched_switch 151 208 991 Note that, task local storage gives better performance than hashtab for handle__sched_wakeup and handle__sched_switch. On the other hand, for handle__sched_wakeup_new, task local storage is slower than hashtab with prealloc. This is because handle__sched_wakeup_new accesses the data for the first time, so it has to allocate the data for task local storage. Once the initial allocation is done, subsequent accesses, as those in handle__sched_wakeup, are much faster with task local storage. If we disable hashtab prealloc, task local storage is much faster for all 3 functions. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> --- tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c index 1f18a409f0443..645530ca7e985 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c +++ b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c @@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ const volatile __u64 min_us = 0; const volatile pid_t targ_pid = 0; struct { - __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH); - __uint(max_entries, 10240); - __type(key, u32); + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_TASK_STORAGE); + __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC); + __type(key, int); __type(value, u64); } start SEC(".maps"); @@ -25,15 +25,20 @@ struct { /* record enqueue timestamp */ __always_inline -static int trace_enqueue(u32 tgid, u32 pid) +static int trace_enqueue(struct task_struct *t) { - u64 ts; + u32 pid = t->pid; + u64 *ptr; if (!pid || (targ_pid && targ_pid != pid)) return 0; - ts = bpf_ktime_get_ns(); - bpf_map_update_elem(&start, &pid, &ts, 0); + ptr = bpf_task_storage_get(&start, t, 0, + BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE); + if (!ptr) + return 0; + + *ptr = bpf_ktime_get_ns(); return 0; } @@ -43,7 +48,7 @@ int handle__sched_wakeup(u64 *ctx) /* TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *p) */ struct task_struct *p = (void *)ctx[0]; - return trace_enqueue(p->tgid, p->pid); + return trace_enqueue(p); } SEC("tp_btf/sched_wakeup_new") @@ -52,7 +57,7 @@ int handle__sched_wakeup_new(u64 *ctx) /* TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *p) */ struct task_struct *p = (void *)ctx[0]; - return trace_enqueue(p->tgid, p->pid); + return trace_enqueue(p); } SEC("tp_btf/sched_switch") @@ -70,12 +75,16 @@ int handle__sched_switch(u64 *ctx) /* ivcsw: treat like an enqueue event and store timestamp */ if (prev->state == TASK_RUNNING) - trace_enqueue(prev->tgid, prev->pid); + trace_enqueue(prev); pid = next->pid; + /* For pid mismatch, save a bpf_task_storage_get */ + if (!pid || (targ_pid && targ_pid != pid)) + return 0; + /* fetch timestamp and calculate delta */ - tsp = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&start, &pid); + tsp = bpf_task_storage_get(&start, next, 0, 0); if (!tsp) return 0; /* missed enqueue */ @@ -91,7 +100,7 @@ int handle__sched_switch(u64 *ctx) bpf_perf_event_output(ctx, &events, BPF_F_CURRENT_CPU, &event, sizeof(event)); - bpf_map_delete_elem(&start, &pid); + bpf_task_storage_delete(&start, next); return 0; } -- 2.24.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-25 23:45 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-02-25 23:43 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/6] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs Song Liu 2021-02-25 23:43 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/6] " Song Liu 2021-02-25 23:43 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/6] bpf: prevent deadlock from recursive bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] Song Liu 2021-02-26 0:01 ` Martin KaFai Lau 2021-02-25 23:43 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/6] selftests/bpf: add non-BPF_LSM test for task local storage Song Liu 2021-02-25 23:43 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 4/6] selftests/bpf: test deadlock from recursive bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] Song Liu 2021-02-25 23:43 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 5/6] bpf: runqslower: prefer using local vmlimux to generate vmlinux.h Song Liu 2021-02-25 23:43 ` Song Liu [this message] 2021-02-26 0:03 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/6] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs Martin KaFai Lau 2021-02-26 20:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=20210225234319.336131-7-songliubraving@fb.com \ --to=songliubraving@fb.com \ --cc=andrii@kernel.org \ --cc=ast@kernel.org \ --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \ --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 6/6] bpf: runqslower: use task local storage' \ /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
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).