| Message ID | 20200528235238.74233-1-axelrasmussen@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add histogram measuring mmap_lock contention latency | expand |
On Thu, 28 May 2020 16:52:38 -0700 Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com> wrote: Hi Axel, First, your patch threading is messed up. All the patches should be a reply to this cover page, and not individual emails which get lost among other patches. Next, we already have histogram logic with trace events. Why not build off of that. Or perhaps update lockdep which can record contention with all locks. Why create yet another histogram infrastructure that is used for just a specific purpose? -- Steve > The overall goal of this patchset is to add a latency histogram which measures > `mmap_lock` acquisition time. This is useful to measure the impact of ongoing > work like maple trees and range locks (https://lwn.net/Articles/787629/), and > it is also useful to debug userspace processes which experience long waits due > to lock contention. > > This patchset is built upon walken@google.com's new `mmap_lock` API > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/1307). In its current form, it should apply > cleanly to a 5.7-rc7 tree to which Michel's patchset has already been applied. > > To summarize the changes being made at a high level: > > - Add a histogram library: a `struct histogram` is effectively an array of > thresholds (i.e., buckets), and an array of per-cpu `u64` counts of the > number of samples in each bucket. > > - Modify Michel's mmap_lock API to record samples in a histogram, owned by the > `mm_struct`, on each lock acquisition. For contended lock acquisitions, we > compute the amount of time spent waiting, which determines the bucket. > > - For uncontended cases, we still record a sample, but with "0" latency. The > reasoning for this is, a) we don't want to incur the overhead of actually > measuring the time, but b) we still want to end up with an accurate count of > acquisition attempts, as this lets us compute latency percentiles (e.g., "x% > of lock acquisitions completed in <= y ns"). > > Changes since v1 (sent to a few folks within Google for initial review): > > - Added a tracepoint to the contended case. > - Modified `mmap_write_lock_nested` to split the {un,}contended cases. > - Removed support for having more than one histogram in `mm_struct`. > - Removed any histogram code not explicitly used in this patchset. > - Whitespace cleanups. > > Axel Rasmussen (7): > histogram: add struct histogram > histogram: add helper function to expose histograms to userspace > mmap_lock: add a histogram structure to struct mm_struct > mmap_lock: allocate histogram (if enabled) in mm_init > mmap_lock: add /proc/<pid>/mmap_lock_contention interface > mmap_lock: increment histogram whenever mmap_lock is acquired > mmap_lock: add a tracepoint to contended acquisitions > > fs/proc/base.c | 25 +++ > include/linux/histogram.h | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/mm_types.h | 11 ++ > include/linux/mmap_lock.h | 92 +++++++++- > include/trace/events/mmap_lock.h | 34 ++++ > kernel/fork.c | 55 ++++++ > kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 4 +- > lib/Kconfig | 3 + > lib/Makefile | 2 + > lib/histogram.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > mm/Kconfig | 13 ++ > mm/Makefile | 1 + > mm/mmap_lock.c | 46 +++++ > 13 files changed, 782 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 include/linux/histogram.h > create mode 100644 include/trace/events/mmap_lock.h > create mode 100644 lib/histogram.c > create mode 100644 mm/mmap_lock.c > > -- > 2.27.0.rc0.183.gde8f92d652-goog
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:24 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2020 16:52:38 -0700 > Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Axel, > > First, your patch threading is messed up. All the patches should be a > reply to this cover page, and not individual emails which get lost > among other patches. > Sorry - I'll fix this in the future. (I mistakenly ran git send-email on each patch individually, rather than globbing them into a single command.) > > Next, we already have histogram logic with trace events. Why not build > off of that. Or perhaps update lockdep which can record contention with > all locks. Why create yet another histogram infrastructure that is used > for just a specific purpose? > The use case we have in mind for this is to enable this instrumentation widely in Google's production fleet. Internally, we have a userspace thing which scrapes these metrics and publishes them such that we can look at aggregate metrics across our fleet. The thinking is that mechanisms like lockdep or getting histograms with e.g. BPF attached to the tracepoint introduces too much overhead for this to be viable. (Although, granted, I don't have benchmarks to prove this - if there's skepticism, I can produce such a thing - or prove myself wrong and rethink my approach. :) ) > > -- Steve > > > > The overall goal of this patchset is to add a latency histogram which > measures > > `mmap_lock` acquisition time. This is useful to measure the impact of > ongoing > > work like maple trees and range locks (https://lwn.net/Articles/787629/), > and > > it is also useful to debug userspace processes which experience long > waits due > > to lock contention. > > > > This patchset is built upon walken@google.com's new `mmap_lock` API > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/1307). In its current form, it should > apply > > cleanly to a 5.7-rc7 tree to which Michel's patchset has already been > applied. > > > > To summarize the changes being made at a high level: > > > > - Add a histogram library: a `struct histogram` is effectively an array > of > > thresholds (i.e., buckets), and an array of per-cpu `u64` counts of the > > number of samples in each bucket. > > > > - Modify Michel's mmap_lock API to record samples in a histogram, owned > by the > > `mm_struct`, on each lock acquisition. For contended lock acquisitions, > we > > compute the amount of time spent waiting, which determines the bucket. > > > > - For uncontended cases, we still record a sample, but with "0" latency. > The > > reasoning for this is, a) we don't want to incur the overhead of > actually > > measuring the time, but b) we still want to end up with an accurate > count of > > acquisition attempts, as this lets us compute latency percentiles > (e.g., "x% > > of lock acquisitions completed in <= y ns"). > > > > Changes since v1 (sent to a few folks within Google for initial review): > > > > - Added a tracepoint to the contended case. > > - Modified `mmap_write_lock_nested` to split the {un,}contended cases. > > - Removed support for having more than one histogram in `mm_struct`. > > - Removed any histogram code not explicitly used in this patchset. > > - Whitespace cleanups. > > > > Axel Rasmussen (7): > > histogram: add struct histogram > > histogram: add helper function to expose histograms to userspace > > mmap_lock: add a histogram structure to struct mm_struct > > mmap_lock: allocate histogram (if enabled) in mm_init > > mmap_lock: add /proc/<pid>/mmap_lock_contention interface > > mmap_lock: increment histogram whenever mmap_lock is acquired > > mmap_lock: add a tracepoint to contended acquisitions > > > > fs/proc/base.c | 25 +++ > > include/linux/histogram.h | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/mm_types.h | 11 ++ > > include/linux/mmap_lock.h | 92 +++++++++- > > include/trace/events/mmap_lock.h | 34 ++++ > > kernel/fork.c | 55 ++++++ > > kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 4 +- > > lib/Kconfig | 3 + > > lib/Makefile | 2 + > > lib/histogram.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > mm/Kconfig | 13 ++ > > mm/Makefile | 1 + > > mm/mmap_lock.c | 46 +++++ > > 13 files changed, 782 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 include/linux/histogram.h > > create mode 100644 include/trace/events/mmap_lock.h > > create mode 100644 lib/histogram.c > > create mode 100644 mm/mmap_lock.c > > > > -- > > 2.27.0.rc0.183.gde8f92d652-goog > >
Axel, Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com> writes: > The overall goal of this patchset is to add a latency histogram which measures > `mmap_lock` acquisition time. This is useful to measure the impact of ongoing > work like maple trees and range locks (https://lwn.net/Articles/787629/), and > it is also useful to debug userspace processes which experience long waits due > to lock contention. > > This patchset is built upon walken@google.com's new `mmap_lock` API > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/1307). In its current form, it should apply > cleanly to a 5.7-rc7 tree to which Michel's patchset has already been applied. > > To summarize the changes being made at a high level: > > - Add a histogram library: a `struct histogram` is effectively an array of > thresholds (i.e., buckets), and an array of per-cpu `u64` counts of the > number of samples in each bucket. this is maybe a redundant question as I did not follow the V1 submission. Why do we need yet another histogram mechanism for instrumentation purposes? ftrace has histogram support already. Why can't this be reused? Thanks, tglx
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:39:08PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote: > The use case we have in mind for this is to enable this instrumentation > widely in Google's production fleet. Internally, we have a userspace thing > which scrapes these metrics and publishes them such that we can look at > aggregate metrics across our fleet. The thinking is that mechanisms like > lockdep or getting histograms with e.g. BPF attached to the tracepoint > introduces too much overhead for this to be viable. (Although, granted, I > don't have benchmarks to prove this - if there's skepticism, I can produce > such a thing - or prove myself wrong and rethink my approach. :) ) Whichever way around; I don't believe in special instrumentation like this. We'll grow a thousand separate pieces of crap if we go this route. Next on, someone will come and instrument yet another lock, with yet another 1000 lines of gunk. Why can't you kprobe the mmap_lock things and use ftrace histograms?
On Fri, 29 May 2020 10:09:57 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:39:08PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote: > > > The use case we have in mind for this is to enable this instrumentation > > widely in Google's production fleet. Internally, we have a userspace thing > > which scrapes these metrics and publishes them such that we can look at > > aggregate metrics across our fleet. The thinking is that mechanisms like > > lockdep or getting histograms with e.g. BPF attached to the tracepoint > > introduces too much overhead for this to be viable. (Although, granted, I > > don't have benchmarks to prove this - if there's skepticism, I can produce > > such a thing - or prove myself wrong and rethink my approach. :) ) > > Whichever way around; I don't believe in special instrumentation like > this. We'll grow a thousand separate pieces of crap if we go this route. > > Next on, someone will come and instrument yet another lock, with yet > another 1000 lines of gunk. > > Why can't you kprobe the mmap_lock things and use ftrace histograms? +1. As far as I can see the series, if you want to make a histogram of the duration of acquiring locks, you might only need 7/7 (but this is a minimum subset.) I recommend you to introduce a set of tracepoints -- start-locking, locked, and released so that we can investigate which process is waiting for which one. Then you can use either bpf or ftrace to make a histogram easily. Thank you,
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:04 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 10:09:57 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:39:08PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote: > > > > > The use case we have in mind for this is to enable this instrumentation > > > widely in Google's production fleet. Internally, we have a userspace thing > > > which scrapes these metrics and publishes them such that we can look at > > > aggregate metrics across our fleet. The thinking is that mechanisms like > > > lockdep or getting histograms with e.g. BPF attached to the tracepoint > > > introduces too much overhead for this to be viable. (Although, granted, I > > > don't have benchmarks to prove this - if there's skepticism, I can produce > > > such a thing - or prove myself wrong and rethink my approach. :) ) > > > > Whichever way around; I don't believe in special instrumentation like > > this. We'll grow a thousand separate pieces of crap if we go this route. > > > > Next on, someone will come and instrument yet another lock, with yet > > another 1000 lines of gunk. > > > > Why can't you kprobe the mmap_lock things and use ftrace histograms? > > +1. > As far as I can see the series, if you want to make a histogram > of the duration of acquiring locks, you might only need 7/7 (but this > is a minimum subset.) I recommend you to introduce a set of tracepoints > -- start-locking, locked, and released so that we can investigate > which process is waiting for which one. Then you can use either bpf > or ftrace to make a histogram easily. > > Thank you, > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> The reasoning against using BPF or ftrace basically comes down to overhead. My intuition is that BPF/ftrace are great for testing / debugging on a small number of machines, but are less suitable for leaving them enabled in production across many servers. This may not be generally true, but due to how "hot" this lock is, I think this may be sort of a pathological case. Consider maple trees and range locks: if we're running Linux on many servers, with many different workloads, it's useful to see the impact of these changes in production, and in aggregate, over a "long" period of time, instead of just under test conditions on a small number of machines. I'll circle back next week with some benchmarks to confirm/deny my intuition on this. If I can confirm the overhead of BPF / ftrace is low enough, I'll pursue that route instead. The point about special instrumentation is well taken. I completely agree we don't want a file in /proc for each lock in the kernel. :) I think there's some argument to be made that mmap_lock in particular is "special", considering the amount of investment going into optimizing it vs. other locks.
The overall goal of this patchset is to add a latency histogram which measures `mmap_lock` acquisition time. This is useful to measure the impact of ongoing work like maple trees and range locks (https://lwn.net/Articles/787629/), and it is also useful to debug userspace processes which experience long waits due to lock contention. This patchset is built upon walken@google.com's new `mmap_lock` API (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/1307). In its current form, it should apply cleanly to a 5.7-rc7 tree to which Michel's patchset has already been applied. To summarize the changes being made at a high level: - Add a histogram library: a `struct histogram` is effectively an array of thresholds (i.e., buckets), and an array of per-cpu `u64` counts of the number of samples in each bucket. - Modify Michel's mmap_lock API to record samples in a histogram, owned by the `mm_struct`, on each lock acquisition. For contended lock acquisitions, we compute the amount of time spent waiting, which determines the bucket. - For uncontended cases, we still record a sample, but with "0" latency. The reasoning for this is, a) we don't want to incur the overhead of actually measuring the time, but b) we still want to end up with an accurate count of acquisition attempts, as this lets us compute latency percentiles (e.g., "x% of lock acquisitions completed in <= y ns"). Changes since v1 (sent to a few folks within Google for initial review): - Added a tracepoint to the contended case. - Modified `mmap_write_lock_nested` to split the {un,}contended cases. - Removed support for having more than one histogram in `mm_struct`. - Removed any histogram code not explicitly used in this patchset. - Whitespace cleanups. Axel Rasmussen (7): histogram: add struct histogram histogram: add helper function to expose histograms to userspace mmap_lock: add a histogram structure to struct mm_struct mmap_lock: allocate histogram (if enabled) in mm_init mmap_lock: add /proc/<pid>/mmap_lock_contention interface mmap_lock: increment histogram whenever mmap_lock is acquired mmap_lock: add a tracepoint to contended acquisitions fs/proc/base.c | 25 +++ include/linux/histogram.h | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/mm_types.h | 11 ++ include/linux/mmap_lock.h | 92 +++++++++- include/trace/events/mmap_lock.h | 34 ++++ kernel/fork.c | 55 ++++++ kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 4 +- lib/Kconfig | 3 + lib/Makefile | 2 + lib/histogram.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++ mm/Kconfig | 13 ++ mm/Makefile | 1 + mm/mmap_lock.c | 46 +++++ 13 files changed, 782 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/histogram.h create mode 100644 include/trace/events/mmap_lock.h create mode 100644 lib/histogram.c create mode 100644 mm/mmap_lock.c -- 2.27.0.rc0.183.gde8f92d652-goog