From patchwork Fri Aug 9 06:10:04 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: "Liao, Chang" X-Patchwork-Id: 13758437 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com (szxga05-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7A1016CD2F; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 06:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.191 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723184364; cv=none; b=W31dmcb1k7sMJvTX5ry329U0gAc4VN+GEIvQSop5eVod6AZnM1dMbaCp9JvAPdJjyJj+VgenUHszzI7vNRfgFTyoSm2qaB0vRW8PRdwyM735cBGgyMEO9Z1PA36JFqggm8/Rd43nP9XBi68C6VwXWIbWawO8CA1ILPJarH5B3t4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723184364; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uyl4wrcJ5KK0XRjqnV37zrfuZKoS4h+k6rcWIObf2B4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lzX69SRBrITWz1+0TjV6cZfJz9A0pQrRZW2hkAaNZjVWLdLWXCiG7ABC9+Bh4t1bfyqa9nWcyCR/ojk6lziNIAO4W3P8Med2hprHweD4a1HGXi6358wKYZ7Ds64zUn6LmylJAVt4rfTLg3Z5b90qFG6n6a/qP447zgjpkCY1u/M= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.191 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.17]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WgDFF2pCXz20lF5; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 14:16:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemd200013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.133]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F2FE1A0188; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 14:19:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com (10.67.174.28) by kwepemd200013.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.34; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 14:19:15 +0800 From: Liao Chang To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , CC: , , , Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] uprobes: Remove the spinlock within handle_singlestep() Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 06:10:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20240809061004.2112369-3-liaochang1@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: <20240809061004.2112369-1-liaochang1@huawei.com> References: <20240809061004.2112369-1-liaochang1@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To kwepemd200013.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.133) This patch introduces a flag to track TIF_SIGPENDING is suppress temporarily during the uprobe single-step. Upon uprobe singlestep is handled and the flag is confirmed, it could resume the TIF_SIGPENDING directly without acquiring the siglock in most case, then reducing contention and improving overall performance. I've use the script developed by Andrii in [1] to run benchmark. The CPU used was Kunpeng916 (Hi1616), 4 NUMA nodes, 64 cores@2.4GHz running the kernel on next tree + the optimization for get_xol_insn_slot() [2]. before-opt ---------- uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 0.907 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.907M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 1.676 ± 0.008M/s ( 0.838M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 3.210 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.802M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 4.457 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.557M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 3.724 ± 0.011M/s ( 0.233M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 2.761 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.086M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 1.293 ± 0.015M/s ( 0.020M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 1 cpus): 0.883 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.883M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 2 cpus): 1.642 ± 0.005M/s ( 0.821M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 4 cpus): 3.086 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.771M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 8 cpus): 3.390 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.424M/s/cpu) uprobe-push (16 cpus): 2.652 ± 0.005M/s ( 0.166M/s/cpu) uprobe-push (32 cpus): 2.713 ± 0.005M/s ( 0.085M/s/cpu) uprobe-push (64 cpus): 1.313 ± 0.009M/s ( 0.021M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 1 cpus): 1.774 ± 0.000M/s ( 1.774M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 2 cpus): 3.350 ± 0.001M/s ( 1.675M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 4 cpus): 6.604 ± 0.000M/s ( 1.651M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 8 cpus): 6.706 ± 0.005M/s ( 0.838M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret (16 cpus): 5.231 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.327M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret (32 cpus): 5.743 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.179M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret (64 cpus): 4.726 ± 0.016M/s ( 0.074M/s/cpu) after-opt --------- uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 0.985 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.985M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 1.773 ± 0.005M/s ( 0.887M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 3.304 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.826M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 5.328 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.666M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 6.475 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.405M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 4.831 ± 0.082M/s ( 0.151M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 2.564 ± 0.053M/s ( 0.040M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 1 cpus): 0.964 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.964M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 2 cpus): 1.766 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.883M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 4 cpus): 3.290 ± 0.009M/s ( 0.823M/s/cpu) uprobe-push ( 8 cpus): 4.670 ± 0.002M/s ( 0.584M/s/cpu) uprobe-push (16 cpus): 5.197 ± 0.004M/s ( 0.325M/s/cpu) uprobe-push (32 cpus): 5.068 ± 0.161M/s ( 0.158M/s/cpu) uprobe-push (64 cpus): 2.605 ± 0.026M/s ( 0.041M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 1 cpus): 1.833 ± 0.001M/s ( 1.833M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 2 cpus): 3.384 ± 0.003M/s ( 1.692M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 4 cpus): 6.677 ± 0.004M/s ( 1.669M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret ( 8 cpus): 6.854 ± 0.005M/s ( 0.857M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret (16 cpus): 6.508 ± 0.006M/s ( 0.407M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret (32 cpus): 5.793 ± 0.009M/s ( 0.181M/s/cpu) uprobe-ret (64 cpus): 4.743 ± 0.016M/s ( 0.074M/s/cpu) Above benchmark results demonstrates a obivious improvement in the scalability of trig-uprobe-nop and trig-uprobe-push, the peak throughput of which are from 4.5M/s to 6.4M/s and 3.3M/s to 5.1M/s individually. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240731214256.3588718-1-andrii@kernel.org [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240727094405.1362496-1-liaochang1@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Liao Chang --- include/linux/uprobes.h | 1 + kernel/events/uprobes.c | 8 +++++--- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h index b503fafb7fb3..49403e68307b 100644 --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct uprobe_task { struct uprobe *active_uprobe; unsigned long xol_vaddr; + bool deny_signal; struct return_instance *return_instances; unsigned int depth; diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c index 76a51a1f51e2..77934fbd1370 100644 --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c @@ -1979,6 +1979,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void) WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP); if (task_sigpending(t)) { + utask->deny_signal = true; clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING); if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) { @@ -2288,9 +2289,10 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs) utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING; xol_free_insn_slot(current); - spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); - recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */ - spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); + if (utask->deny_signal) { + set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING); + utask->deny_signal = false; + } if (unlikely(err)) { uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");