From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.wilcox@oracle.com>,
Srinivas Eeda <SRINIVAS.EEDA@oracle.com>,
"joe.jin\@oracle.com" <joe.jin@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: severe proc dentry lock contention
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:02:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877dw3apn8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200618233958.GV8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (Matthew Wilcox's message of "Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:39:58 -0700")
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 03:17:33PM -0700, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> When debugging some performance issue, i found that thousands of threads
>> exit around same time could cause a severe spin lock contention on proc
>> dentry "/proc/$parent_process_pid/task/", that's because threads needs to
>> clean up their pid file from that dir when exit. Check the following
>> standalone test case that simulated the case and perf top result on v5.7
>> kernel. Any idea on how to fix this?
>
> Thanks, Junxiao.
>
> We've looked at a few different ways of fixing this problem.
>
> Even though the contention is within the dcache, it seems like a usecase
> that the dcache shouldn't be optimised for -- generally we do not have
> hundreds of CPUs removing dentries from a single directory in parallel.
>
> We could fix this within procfs. We don't have a great patch yet, but
> the current approach we're looking at allows only one thread at a time
> to call dput() on any /proc/*/task directory.
>
> We could also look at fixing this within the scheduler. Only allowing
> one CPU to run the threads of an exiting process would fix this particular
> problem, but might have other consequences.
>
> I was hoping that 7bc3e6e55acf would fix this, but that patch is in 5.7,
> so that hope is ruled out.
Does anyone know if problem new in v5.7? I am wondering if I introduced
this problem when I refactored the code or if I simply churned the code
but the issue remains effectively the same.
Can you try only flushing entries when the last thread of the process is
reaped? I think in practice we would want to be a little more
sophisticated but it is a good test case to see if it solves the issue.
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index cebae77a9664..d56e4eb60bdd 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ void put_task_struct_rcu_user(struct task_struct *task)
void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
{
struct task_struct *leader;
- struct pid *thread_pid;
+ struct pid *thread_pid = NULL;
int zap_leader;
repeat:
/* don't need to get the RCU readlock here - the process is dead and
@@ -165,7 +165,8 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
ptrace_release_task(p);
- thread_pid = get_pid(p->thread_pid);
+ if (p == p->group_leader)
+ thread_pid = get_pid(p->thread_pid);
__exit_signal(p);
/*
@@ -188,8 +189,10 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
}
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
- proc_flush_pid(thread_pid);
- put_pid(thread_pid);
+ if (thread_pid) {
+ proc_flush_pid(thread_pid);
+ put_pid(thread_pid);
+ }
release_thread(p);
put_task_struct_rcu_user(p);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-19 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-18 22:17 severe proc dentry lock contention Junxiao Bi
2020-06-18 23:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-19 0:02 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2020-06-19 0:27 ` Junxiao Bi
2020-06-19 3:30 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-06-19 14:09 ` [PATCH] proc: Avoid a thundering herd of threads freeing proc dentries Eric W. Biederman
2020-06-19 15:56 ` Junxiao Bi
2020-06-19 17:24 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-06-19 21:56 ` Junxiao Bi
2020-06-19 22:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-06-20 16:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-22 5:15 ` Junxiao Bi
2020-06-22 15:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-06-22 15:48 ` willy
2020-08-17 12:19 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-06-22 17:16 ` Junxiao Bi
2020-06-23 0:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-25 22:11 ` Junxiao Bi
2020-06-22 5:33 ` Masahiro Yamada
2020-06-22 15:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=877dw3apn8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=SRINIVAS.EEDA@oracle.com \
--cc=joe.jin@oracle.com \
--cc=junxiao.bi@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.wilcox@oracle.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).