linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Matt Wu <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>
Cc: naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mattwu@163.com,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kretprobe scalability improvement
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 01:25:26 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210707012526.5b72acfac983ff13183f13cc@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7785805e-8dd1-bc98-feb4-b722433fdea0@bytedance.com>

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:21:00 +0800
Matt Wu <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com> wrote:

> On 2021/7/5 PM2:59, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Sat,  3 Jul 2021 18:28:18 +0800
> > "wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: wuqiang <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>
> >>
> >> The original freelist is a LIFO queue based on singly linked list, which lacks
> >> of scalability, and thus becomes bottleneck under high workloads. freelist was
> >> introduced by Masami Hiramatsu's work of removing kretprobe hash lock:
> >> url: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/29/209.
> >>
> >> Here an array-based MPMC lockless queue is proposed. The solution of bounded
> >> array can nicely avoid ABA issue, while freelist or circular queue etc. have
> >> to perform 2 CAS loops. The other advantage is that order and fairness can be
> >> ignored, the only concern is to retrieve kretprobe instance records as fast
> >> as possible, i.e. performance and correctness. Tests of kretprobe on 96-CORE
> >> ARM64 show the biggest gain as 466.7x of the original freelist throughput.
> >> The raw queue throughput can be 1,975 times of freelist. Here are the results:
> >>
> >> Ubuntu 20.04, 5.13.0-rc6 (XEON E5-2660V3 2.4G, DDR4 2133MT/s, 10 CORES/20 THREADS):
> >>                  1x        2x        4x        8x        10x        16x        20x        32x        40x
> >> freelist: 13086080  22493637  32773854  20129772   18455899   18435561   18980332   18988603   18991334
> >> array   :  13144036  26059941  47449954  94517172  115856027  116414714  125692971  125553061  125685981
> >>
> >> Ubuntu 21.04 - 5.12.10 QEMU 96 CORES (HUAWEI TaiShan 2280V2  KP920 96 CORES 2.6G, DDR4 2944 MT/s):
> >>                    1x          2x          4x          8x          16x          24x          48x            96x           192x
> >> freelist: 17,233,640  10,296,664   8,095,309   6,993,545    5,050,817    4,295,283    3,382,013      2,738,050      2,743,345
> >> array:    19,360,905  37,395,225  56,417,463  10,020,136  209,876,209  328,940,014  632,754,916  1,277,862,473  1,169,076,739
> > 
> > Interesting result! How would you measure the overhead?
> > And also could you clarify the real scalability example of kretprobe usage ?
> > E.g. putting kretprobes at some function and profiling with perf. See following
> > slides for details.
> > 
> > https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/files/slides/Handling%20the%20Massive%20Multiple%20Kprobes%20v2_1.pdf
> > (BTW, these efforts totally stalls a while, needs to be reviewed again)
> 
> I did two kinds of tests: one is real kretprobe, the other is throughput
> comparison of different queue implementations.
> 
> 1) kretprobe upon security_file_mprotect
> 
>     We found the performance bottleneck due to udp_recvmsg kretprobe in
>     our production environment, then re-produced the issue with a lighter
>     syscall: mprotect.
> 
>     "perf stat" is used to count number of sys_enter_mprotect calligs:
>     perf stat -a -I 10000 -e 'syscalls:sys_enter_mprotect' vmstat 1 35
> 
>     The user mode program is just a loop of mprotect() to trigger the
>     registered kretprobe callbacks. The codes are pushed to:
>     https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/blob/main/mprotect/
> 
>     I measured both kprobe and kretprobe for 4.14/5.9/5.12. The results
>     of kprobe is really good, but kretprobe doesn't scale well (even for
>     kernel 5.12 with "kprobes: Remove kretprobe hash").

Hmm, Ok if there is a real kretprobe issue (not freelist), it should
be solved. Could you also point this result from your changelog?

> 
> 2) raw queue throughput benchmarks
> 
>     I wrote a module with dedicated kernel threads performing insertions
>     and deletions of several freelist implementations for 10ms.
> 
>     The codes and test scripts are available at:
>     https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/blob/main/scalable/
> 
>     1) fl.h: original freelist, LIFO queue based on singly linked list
>     2) ra.h: read from random position, write to last read pos
>     3) sa.h: array-based queue, per-cpu slot to be equally distributed
>     4) saca.h: the proposed version, allocating array with L1 cache line
>        aligned for each core
>     5) saea.h: make every elelment cache_line aligned
>     6) zz.h: a.k.a zigzag, remap numerical order to L1 cache distance,
>        for 64bit pointers, 0 to 0, 1 to 8, 2 to 16
>     7) cq.h: native circular queue, not used, can not handle reentrance
> 
>     Two types of tests are performanced:
>     1) throughput bench: with no delay between deletion and insertion
>     2) emulation bench of real kretprobe: 1us delay before inserting back
> 
>     All the results and charts are available at:
>     https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/tree/main/doc/
> 

OK, this test report is also great :)

> >> So linear scalability is still not available, limited by the following two
> >> considerations:
> >>
> >> 1. keep it simple: best solution could be an implementation of per-cpu queues,
> >>     but it's not applicable for this case due to complexity. After all for
> >>     most cases the number of pre-allocated kretprobe instances (maxactive) is
> >>     only a small value. If not specified by user during registering, maxactive
> >>     is set as CPU cores or 2x when preemption is enabled
> >> 2. keep it compact: cache-line-alignment can solve false-sharing and minimize
> >>     cache thrashing, but it introduces memory wasting, considering the small
> >>     body of structure kretprobe_instance. Secondly the performance improvement
> >>     of cache-line-aligned is not significant as expected
> > 
> > If you really need the linear scalability, drop useless entry-handler and per
> > instance data (or just leave the data pointer) and allocate the instance pool
> > for each task struct. This is perfectly scalable, because kretprobe instance
> > is only for making a shadow stack for the task, not CPU.
> 
> Yes, per-task list of kretprobe instances would deliver best throughput. 
> But the penality could be high in memory efficency and implementations.

How much penalty it would make? If we allocate a 4kb pool for each task,
it would be enough small compared with other resources (and we may be
able to select the pool on-line or compile option)

> Inspired by your idea, I'm thinking of allocating from stack:
> 
> 1) from stack top: need modify stack top limit, might “violate” the
>     purpose of guard page
> 2)reserve from current stack: need modify trampolines of fltrace and
>     kprobe, but there are many challenges.

No, I don't like this change because it will disturb the stack unwinder
and consuming the stack itself.

> 
> >> With a pre-built kernel, further performance tuning can be done by increasing
> >> maxactive when registering kretprobe. Tests show 4x cores number is a fair
> >> choice for both performance and memory efficiency.
> > 
> > Which test should I check? If it is also good for the current freelist,
> > I would like to expand default maxactive. (actually, current maxactive
> > is chosen by the minimum availability)
> 
> I tested with difference maxactive values. For current freelist, bigger
> maxactive values have less effects upon performance.

So bigger 'maxactive' will scale better?

> 
> "missed cases" was also tracked. Based on testings, so long as maxactive
> is more than cores number, there won't be "missed cases".

That depends on where you put the probe. kretprobe can be nested and
sleepable. If you put a kretprobe on the function which doesn't yield,
you don't need bigger maxactive. But kretprobe on the function which
can sleep or yield, you may need more than that.


> >>
> >> More info is available at: https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: wuqiang <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>
> >> ---
> >>   include/linux/freelist.h | 187 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >>   kernel/kprobes.c         |  29 +++---
> >>   2 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/freelist.h b/include/linux/freelist.h
> >> index fc1842b96469..3d4a0bc425b2 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/freelist.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/freelist.h
> >> @@ -1,129 +1,122 @@
> >> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause */
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > 
> > Please do NOT change the license without the agreement of all copyright holders.
> > Or, add a new file and remove the current freelist.h.

What about this?

Thank you,


> > 
> >>   #ifndef FREELIST_H
> >>   #define FREELIST_H
> >>   
> >> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> >>   #include <linux/atomic.h>
> >>   
> >>   /*
> >> - * Copyright: cameron@moodycamel.com
> >> + * lockless queue for kretprobe instances
> >>    *
> >> - * A simple CAS-based lock-free free list. Not the fastest thing in the world
> >> - * under heavy contention, but simple and correct (assuming nodes are never
> >> - * freed until after the free list is destroyed), and fairly speedy under low
> >> - * contention.
> >> - *
> >> - * Adapted from: https://moodycamel.com/blog/2014/solving-the-aba-problem-for-lock-free-free-lists
> >> + * It's an array-based MPMC lockless queue, solely for better scalability
> >> + * and contention mitigation. It's simple in implementation and compact in
> >> + * memory efficiency. The only concern is to retrieve kretprobe instance
> >> + * records as fast as possible, with both order and fairness ignored.
> >>    */
> >>   
> >>   struct freelist_node {
> >> -	atomic_t		refs;
> >> -	struct freelist_node	*next;
> >> +	struct freelist_node    *next;
> >>   };
> >> -
> >>   struct freelist_head {
> >> -	struct freelist_node	*head;
> >> +	uint32_t                fh_size;	/* rounded to power of 2 */
> >> +	uint32_t                fh_mask;	/* (fh_size - 1) */
> >> +	uint16_t                fh_bits;	/* log2(fh_size) */
> >> +	uint16_t                fh_step;	/* per-core shift stride */
> >> +	uint32_t                fh_used;	/* num of elements in list */
> >> +	struct freelist_node  **fh_ents;	/* array for krp instances */
> >>   };
> >>   
> >> -#define REFS_ON_FREELIST 0x80000000
> >> -#define REFS_MASK	 0x7FFFFFFF
> >> +static inline int freelist_init(struct freelist_head *list, int max)
> >> +{
> >> +	uint32_t size, cores = num_possible_cpus();
> >> +
> >> +	list->fh_used = 0;
> >> +	list->fh_step = ilog2(L1_CACHE_BYTES / sizeof(void *));
> >> +	if (max < (cores << list->fh_step))
> >> +		list->fh_size = roundup_pow_of_two(cores) << list->fh_step;
> >> +	else
> >> +		list->fh_size = roundup_pow_of_two(max);
> >> +	list->fh_mask = list->fh_size - 1;
> >> +	list->fh_bits = (uint16_t)ilog2(list->fh_size);
> >> +	size = list->fh_size * sizeof(struct freelist_node *);
> >> +	list->fh_ents = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!list->fh_ents)
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >>   
> >> -static inline void __freelist_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >> +static inline int freelist_try_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >>   {
> >> -	/*
> >> -	 * Since the refcount is zero, and nobody can increase it once it's
> >> -	 * zero (except us, and we run only one copy of this method per node at
> >> -	 * a time, i.e. the single thread case), then we know we can safely
> >> -	 * change the next pointer of the node; however, once the refcount is
> >> -	 * back above zero, then other threads could increase it (happens under
> >> -	 * heavy contention, when the refcount goes to zero in between a load
> >> -	 * and a refcount increment of a node in try_get, then back up to
> >> -	 * something non-zero, then the refcount increment is done by the other
> >> -	 * thread) -- so if the CAS to add the node to the actual list fails,
> >> -	 * decrese the refcount and leave the add operation to the next thread
> >> -	 * who puts the refcount back to zero (which could be us, hence the
> >> -	 * loop).
> >> -	 */
> >> -	struct freelist_node *head = READ_ONCE(list->head);
> >> -
> >> -	for (;;) {
> >> -		WRITE_ONCE(node->next, head);
> >> -		atomic_set_release(&node->refs, 1);
> >> -
> >> -		if (!try_cmpxchg_release(&list->head, &head, node)) {
> >> -			/*
> >> -			 * Hmm, the add failed, but we can only try again when
> >> -			 * the refcount goes back to zero.
> >> -			 */
> >> -			if (atomic_fetch_add_release(REFS_ON_FREELIST - 1, &node->refs) == 1)
> >> -				continue;
> >> +	uint32_t i, hint = list->fh_used << list->fh_step;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < list->fh_size; i++) {
> >> +		struct freelist_node *item = NULL;
> >> +		uint32_t slot = (i + hint) & list->fh_mask;
> >> +		if (try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, node)) {
> >> +			list->fh_used++;
> >> +			break;
> >>   		}
> >> -		return;
> >>   	}
> >> +
> >> +	return (i >= list->fh_size);
> >>   }
> >>   
> >> -static inline void freelist_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >> +static inline int freelist_add(struct freelist_node *node, struct freelist_head *list)
> >>   {
> >> -	/*
> >> -	 * We know that the should-be-on-freelist bit is 0 at this point, so
> >> -	 * it's safe to set it using a fetch_add.
> >> -	 */
> >> -	if (!atomic_fetch_add_release(REFS_ON_FREELIST, &node->refs)) {
> >> -		/*
> >> -		 * Oh look! We were the last ones referencing this node, and we
> >> -		 * know we want to add it to the free list, so let's do it!
> >> -		 */
> >> -		__freelist_add(node, list);
> >> -	}
> >> +	uint32_t hint = raw_smp_processor_id() << list->fh_step;
> >> +	uint32_t slot = ((uint32_t) hint) & list->fh_mask;
> >> +
> >> +	do {
> >> +		struct freelist_node *item = NULL;
> >> +		if (try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, node))
> >> +			return 0;
> >> +		slot = (slot + 1) & list->fh_mask;
> >> +	} while (1);
> >> +
> >> +	return -1;
> >>   }
> >>   
> >>   static inline struct freelist_node *freelist_try_get(struct freelist_head *list)
> >>   {
> >> -	struct freelist_node *prev, *next, *head = smp_load_acquire(&list->head);
> >> -	unsigned int refs;
> >> -
> >> -	while (head) {
> >> -		prev = head;
> >> -		refs = atomic_read(&head->refs);
> >> -		if ((refs & REFS_MASK) == 0 ||
> >> -		    !atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&head->refs, &refs, refs+1)) {
> >> -			head = smp_load_acquire(&list->head);
> >> -			continue;
> >> +	struct freelist_node *node = NULL;
> >> +	uint32_t i, hint = raw_smp_processor_id() << list->fh_step;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < list->fh_size; i++) {
> >> +		uint32_t slot = (hint + i) & list->fh_mask;
> >> +		struct freelist_node *item = smp_load_acquire(&list->fh_ents[slot]);
> >> +		if (item && try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, NULL)) {
> >> +			node = item;
> >> +			break;
> >>   		}
> >> +	}
> >>   
> >> -		/*
> >> -		 * Good, reference count has been incremented (it wasn't at
> >> -		 * zero), which means we can read the next and not worry about
> >> -		 * it changing between now and the time we do the CAS.
> >> -		 */
> >> -		next = READ_ONCE(head->next);
> >> -		if (try_cmpxchg_acquire(&list->head, &head, next)) {
> >> -			/*
> >> -			 * Yay, got the node. This means it was on the list,
> >> -			 * which means should-be-on-freelist must be false no
> >> -			 * matter the refcount (because nobody else knows it's
> >> -			 * been taken off yet, it can't have been put back on).
> >> -			 */
> >> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&head->refs) & REFS_ON_FREELIST);
> >> -
> >> -			/*
> >> -			 * Decrease refcount twice, once for our ref, and once
> >> -			 * for the list's ref.
> >> -			 */
> >> -			atomic_fetch_add(-2, &head->refs);
> >> -
> >> -			return head;
> >> -		}
> >> +	return node;
> >> +}
> >>   
> >> -		/*
> >> -		 * OK, the head must have changed on us, but we still need to decrement
> >> -		 * the refcount we increased.
> >> -		 */
> >> -		refs = atomic_fetch_add(-1, &prev->refs);
> >> -		if (refs == REFS_ON_FREELIST + 1)
> >> -			__freelist_add(prev, list);
> >> +static inline void freelist_destroy(struct freelist_head *list, void *context,
> >> +                                    int (*release)(void *, void *))
> >> +{
> >> +	uint32_t i;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!list->fh_ents)
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < list->fh_size; i++) {
> >> +		uint32_t slot = i & list->fh_mask;
> >> +		struct freelist_node *item = smp_load_acquire(&list->fh_ents[slot]);
> >> +		while (item) {
> >> +			if (try_cmpxchg_release(&list->fh_ents[slot], &item, NULL)) {
> >> +				if (release)
> >> +					release(context, item);
> >> +				break;
> >> +			}
> >> +		}
> >>   	}
> >>   
> >> -	return NULL;
> >> +	if (list->fh_ents) {
> >> +		kfree(list->fh_ents);
> >> +		list->fh_ents = NULL;
> >> +	}
> >>   }
> >> -
> >>   #endif /* FREELIST_H */
> >> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> >> index 471b1d18a92f..5c41bee25983 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> >> @@ -1277,20 +1277,21 @@ void kprobe_flush_task(struct task_struct *tk)
> >>   }
> >>   NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_flush_task);
> >>   
> >> -static inline void free_rp_inst(struct kretprobe *rp)
> >> +static int release_ri(void *context, void *node)
> >>   {
> >>   	struct kretprobe_instance *ri;
> >> -	struct freelist_node *node;
> >> -	int count = 0;
> >> +	ri = container_of(node, struct kretprobe_instance, freelist);
> >> +	kfree(ri);
> >> +	if (context)
> >> +		(*((int *)context))++;
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >>   
> >> -	node = rp->freelist.head;
> >> -	while (node) {
> >> -		ri = container_of(node, struct kretprobe_instance, freelist);
> >> -		node = node->next;
> >> +static inline void free_rp_inst(struct kretprobe *rp)
> >> +{
> >> +	int count = 0;
> >>   
> >> -		kfree(ri);
> >> -		count++;
> >> -	}
> >> +	freelist_destroy(&rp->freelist, &count, release_ri);
> >>   
> >>   	if (refcount_sub_and_test(count, &rp->rph->ref)) {
> >>   		kfree(rp->rph);
> >> @@ -2015,10 +2016,14 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
> >>   		rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
> >>   #endif
> >>   	}
> >> -	rp->freelist.head = NULL;
> >> +	if (freelist_init(&rp->freelist, rp->maxactive))
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >>   	rp->rph = kzalloc(sizeof(struct kretprobe_holder), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> -	if (!rp->rph)
> >> +	if (!rp->rph) {
> >> +		freelist_destroy(&rp->freelist, NULL, NULL);
> >>   		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +	}
> >>   
> >>   	rp->rph->rp = rp;
> >>   	for (i = 0; i < rp->maxactive; i++) {
> >> -- 
> >> 2.25.1


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-06 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-03 10:28 wuqiang.matt
2021-07-04  9:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-07-04 23:59   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2021-07-05  2:50     ` Matt Wu
2021-07-05  6:59 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2021-07-06  1:21   ` Matt Wu
2021-07-06 16:25     ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2021-07-07  3:10       ` Matt Wu
2021-07-07 11:26         ` Masami Hiramatsu
2021-07-04 10:18 Matt Wu

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=20210707012526.5b72acfac983ff13183f13cc@kernel.org \
    --to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mattwu@163.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] kretprobe scalability improvement' \
    /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).