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 20:26:17 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210707202617.ce8b4b261fce6e8b1e531d49@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa0265aa-a1b4-e693-f270-1f9aef463b34@bytedance.com>

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:10:08 +0800
Matt Wu <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com> wrote:

> On 2021/7/7 AM12:25, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > 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" <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?

oops s/from/to/.

> 
> Here are the resuts:
> 
> Linux 5.8.0-45-AMD64 Ubuntu T490 (i7-10510U 1.80G & DDR4 2667)
> threads	   baseline	     kprobe	 kretprobe
> 1p	 72,816,571	 59,411,825	34,578,853
> 2p	111,336,194	 91,219,319	40,303,484
> 3p	144,082,415	112,813,784	41,762,717
> 4p	142,233,213	118,947,750	33,103,895
> 
> Linux 5.12.0-AMD64 Ubuntu T490 (i7-10510U 1.80G & DDR4 2667)
> threads	   baseline	     kprobe	 kretprobe
> 1p	 72,705,816	 59,523,413	39,391,428
> 2p	108,577,114	 90,913,449	48,940,956
> 3p	143,493,477	118,791,390	41,067,841
> 4p	170,406,366	139,667,883	32,398,033
> 
> The chart picture is available at:
> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/tree/main/doc/kprobe_krp_perf.png
> 
> For 5.8 the kretprobe performance is limited by kretprobe hash locking. 
> Then I tried 5.12 with your patch of "Remove kretprobe hash" landed. But
> kretprobe still don't scale, then I digged further and found freelist is
> the culprit.

That's great.

> 
> >> 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 :)
> 
> Thanks. I will give the bpf-percpu-freelist a try this weekend.
> 
> >>>> 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)
> 
> Servers here (typically 96 cores) can have 2000 tasks, but the hosts
> providing docker services ccould have > 5000 tasks. One task can have
> several threads, likely < 2 on average. So estimated penalty could be
> 5000 * 2 * 4K, 39M bytes, i.e. 0.4M bytes per core.

And such a huge machine may have a huge memory too, I guess. :)

> kretprobe is not a certain thing. It's might not used at all, or a task
> might only trigger once in lifetime. The proposed solutions could provide
> promising results with less than 0.4M bytes memory usage per core.

OK, anyway I think this improvement seems good to me.

> 
> >> 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.
> 
> got it.
> 
> >>>> 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?
> 
> Yes, I guess it can reduce cache conflicts. Later I could do a measure
> of cache misses.
> 
> XEON / X86_64 (preempt=0 / cycleus=0)
> 		       1x	      10x	     20x
> zigzag:max=10	142649937	 102381284	  87993433
> freelist:max=10	 90050953	  14533279	  12234181
> array:max=10	170718610	 101061189	  84507025
> strided:max=10	170885073	1645070467	 471586589
> zigzag:max=20	142833611	 251344437	 124256740
> freelist:max=20	 83193711	  13796546	  12035244
> array:max=20	157751314	 208385189	 139943284
> strided:max=20	157810810	1818188777	2188112898
> zigzag:max=40	154501823	 682233175	 242334634
> freelist:max=40	 83284714	  13852153	  11654861
> array:max=40	157817022	 361685213	 251139824
> strided:max=40	158885047	1791159293	1973298443
> 
> The chart url:
> https://github.com/mattwuq/kretprobe/tree/main/doc/kretprobe_maxactive.png

Great! OK, so this could be a cache conflict issue.

> 
> >> "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.
> 
> Sure, it's depends on the environment (loads & apps). So that should be
> the caller's duty to specify when registering kreprobe.

Yes, hmm, I should notice that the default maxactive is the minimal basis
in the document...

> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?
> 
> Ok, it's fine to me. Actually it's a totally rewrite of freelist.h. I'll
> change it back in next version.

Yeah, I saw you change almost all lines. only APIs are left :).

Thank you!

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >>>
> >>>>    #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:[~2021-07-07 11:26 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
2021-07-07  3:10       ` Matt Wu
2021-07-07 11:26         ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
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=20210707202617.ce8b4b261fce6e8b1e531d49@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).