| Message ID | 20241206002417.3295533-5-andrii@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Improve performance and scalability of uretprobes | expand |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:24:17PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: SNIP > +static void free_ret_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask, > + struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) > +{ > + unsigned seq; > + > if (cleanup_hprobe) { > enum hprobe_state hstate; > > @@ -1897,8 +1923,22 @@ static void free_ret_instance(struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) > hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate); > } > > - kfree(ri->extra_consumers); > - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); > + /* > + * At this point return_instance is unlinked from utask's > + * return_instances list and this has become visible to ri_timer(). > + * If seqcount now indicates that ri_timer's return instance > + * processing loop isn't active, we can return ri into the pool of > + * to-be-reused return instances for future uretprobes. If ri_timer() > + * happens to be running right now, though, we fallback to safety and > + * just perform RCU-delated freeing of ri. > + */ > + if (raw_seqcount_try_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount, seq)) { > + /* immediate reuse of ri without RCU GP is OK */ > + ri_pool_push(utask, ri); should the push be limitted somehow? I wonder you could make uprobes/consumers setup that would allocate/push many of ri instances that would not be freed until the process exits? jirka > + } else { > + /* we might be racing with ri_timer(), so play it safe */ > + ri_free(ri); > + } > } > > /* > @@ -1920,7 +1960,15 @@ void uprobe_free_utask(struct task_struct *t) > ri = utask->return_instances; > while (ri) { > ri_next = ri->next; > - free_ret_instance(ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); > + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); > + ri = ri_next; > + } > + > + /* free_ret_instance() above might add to ri_pool, so this loop should come last */ > + ri = utask->ri_pool; > + while (ri) { > + ri_next = ri->next; > + ri_free(ri); > ri = ri_next; > } > > @@ -1943,8 +1991,12 @@ static void ri_timer(struct timer_list *timer) > /* RCU protects return_instance from freeing. */ > guard(rcu)(); > > + write_seqcount_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount); > + > for_each_ret_instance_rcu(ri, utask->return_instances) > hprobe_expire(&ri->hprobe, false); > + > + write_seqcount_end(&utask->ri_seqcount); > } > > static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void) > @@ -1956,6 +2008,7 @@ static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void) > return NULL; > > timer_setup(&utask->ri_timer, ri_timer, 0); > + seqcount_init(&utask->ri_seqcount); > > return utask; > } > @@ -1975,10 +2028,14 @@ static struct uprobe_task *get_utask(void) > return current->utask; > } > > -static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(void) > +static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask) > { > struct return_instance *ri; > > + ri = ri_pool_pop(utask); > + if (ri) > + return ri; > + > ri = kzalloc(sizeof(*ri), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!ri) > return ZERO_SIZE_PTR; > @@ -2119,7 +2176,7 @@ static void cleanup_return_instances(struct uprobe_task *utask, bool chained, > rcu_assign_pointer(utask->return_instances, ri_next); > utask->depth--; > > - free_ret_instance(ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); > + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); > ri = ri_next; > } > } > @@ -2186,7 +2243,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs, > > return; > free: > - kfree(ri); > + ri_free(ri); > } > > /* Prepare to single-step probed instruction out of line. */ > @@ -2385,8 +2442,7 @@ static struct return_instance *push_consumer(struct return_instance *ri, __u64 i > if (unlikely(ri->cons_cnt > 0)) { > ric = krealloc(ri->extra_consumers, sizeof(*ric) * ri->cons_cnt, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!ric) { > - kfree(ri->extra_consumers); > - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); > + ri_free(ri); > return ZERO_SIZE_PTR; > } > ri->extra_consumers = ric; > @@ -2428,8 +2484,9 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs) > struct uprobe_consumer *uc; > bool has_consumers = false, remove = true; > struct return_instance *ri = NULL; > + struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask; > > - current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch; > + utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch; > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) { > bool session = uc->handler && uc->ret_handler; > @@ -2449,12 +2506,12 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs) > continue; > > if (!ri) > - ri = alloc_return_instance(); > + ri = alloc_return_instance(utask); > > if (session) > ri = push_consumer(ri, uc->id, cookie); > } > - current->utask->auprobe = NULL; > + utask->auprobe = NULL; > > if (!ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri)) > prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri); > @@ -2554,7 +2611,7 @@ void uprobe_handle_trampoline(struct pt_regs *regs) > hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate); > > /* We already took care of hprobe, no need to waste more time on that. */ > - free_ret_instance(ri, false /* !cleanup_hprobe */); > + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, false /* !cleanup_hprobe */); > ri = ri_next; > } while (ri != next_chain); > } while (!valid); > -- > 2.43.5 >
On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:24:17PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > Instead of constantly allocating and freeing very short-lived > struct return_instance, reuse it as much as possible within current > task. For that, store a linked list of reusable return_instances within > current->utask. > > The only complication is that ri_timer() might be still processing such > return_instance. And so while the main uretprobe processing logic might > be already done with return_instance and would be OK to immediately > reuse it for the next uretprobe instance, it's not correct to > unconditionally reuse it just like that. > > Instead we make sure that ri_timer() can't possibly be processing it by > using seqcount_t, with ri_timer() being "a writer", while > free_ret_instance() being "a reader". If, after we unlink return > instance from utask->return_instances list, we know that ri_timer() > hasn't gotten to processing utask->return_instances yet, then we can be > sure that immediate return_instance reuse is OK, and so we put it > onto utask->ri_pool for future (potentially, almost immediate) reuse. > > This change shows improvements both in single CPU performance (by > avoiding relatively expensive kmalloc/free combon) and in terms of > multi-CPU scalability, where you can see that per-CPU throughput doesn't > decline as steeply with increased number of CPUs (which were previously > attributed to kmalloc()/free() through profiling): > > BASELINE (latest perf/core) > =========================== > uretprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 1.898 ± 0.002M/s ( 1.898M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 3.574 ± 0.011M/s ( 1.787M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 5.279 ± 0.066M/s ( 1.760M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 6.824 ± 0.047M/s ( 1.706M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 8.339 ± 0.060M/s ( 1.668M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 9.812 ± 0.047M/s ( 1.635M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 11.030 ± 0.048M/s ( 1.576M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 12.453 ± 0.126M/s ( 1.557M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (10 cpus): 14.838 ± 0.044M/s ( 1.484M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (12 cpus): 17.092 ± 0.115M/s ( 1.424M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (14 cpus): 19.576 ± 0.022M/s ( 1.398M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (16 cpus): 22.264 ± 0.015M/s ( 1.391M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (24 cpus): 33.534 ± 0.078M/s ( 1.397M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (32 cpus): 43.262 ± 0.127M/s ( 1.352M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (40 cpus): 53.252 ± 0.080M/s ( 1.331M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (48 cpus): 55.778 ± 0.045M/s ( 1.162M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (56 cpus): 56.850 ± 0.227M/s ( 1.015M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (64 cpus): 62.005 ± 0.077M/s ( 0.969M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (72 cpus): 66.445 ± 0.236M/s ( 0.923M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (80 cpus): 68.353 ± 0.180M/s ( 0.854M/s/cpu) > > THIS PATCHSET (on top of latest perf/core) > ========================================== > uretprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 2.253 ± 0.004M/s ( 2.253M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 4.281 ± 0.003M/s ( 2.140M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 6.389 ± 0.027M/s ( 2.130M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 8.328 ± 0.005M/s ( 2.082M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 10.353 ± 0.001M/s ( 2.071M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 12.513 ± 0.010M/s ( 2.086M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 14.525 ± 0.017M/s ( 2.075M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 15.633 ± 0.013M/s ( 1.954M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (10 cpus): 19.532 ± 0.011M/s ( 1.953M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (12 cpus): 21.405 ± 0.009M/s ( 1.784M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (14 cpus): 24.857 ± 0.020M/s ( 1.776M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (16 cpus): 26.466 ± 0.018M/s ( 1.654M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (24 cpus): 40.513 ± 0.222M/s ( 1.688M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (32 cpus): 54.180 ± 0.074M/s ( 1.693M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (40 cpus): 66.100 ± 0.082M/s ( 1.652M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (48 cpus): 70.544 ± 0.068M/s ( 1.470M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (56 cpus): 74.494 ± 0.055M/s ( 1.330M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (64 cpus): 79.317 ± 0.029M/s ( 1.239M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (72 cpus): 84.875 ± 0.020M/s ( 1.179M/s/cpu) > uretprobe-nop (80 cpus): 92.318 ± 0.224M/s ( 1.154M/s/cpu) nice! left few comments but overall lgtm thanks, jirka
On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 6:07 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:24:17PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > SNIP > > > +static void free_ret_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask, > > + struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) > > +{ > > + unsigned seq; > > + > > if (cleanup_hprobe) { > > enum hprobe_state hstate; > > > > @@ -1897,8 +1923,22 @@ static void free_ret_instance(struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) > > hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate); > > } > > > > - kfree(ri->extra_consumers); > > - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); > > + /* > > + * At this point return_instance is unlinked from utask's > > + * return_instances list and this has become visible to ri_timer(). > > + * If seqcount now indicates that ri_timer's return instance > > + * processing loop isn't active, we can return ri into the pool of > > + * to-be-reused return instances for future uretprobes. If ri_timer() > > + * happens to be running right now, though, we fallback to safety and > > + * just perform RCU-delated freeing of ri. > > + */ > > + if (raw_seqcount_try_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount, seq)) { > > + /* immediate reuse of ri without RCU GP is OK */ > > + ri_pool_push(utask, ri); > > should the push be limitted somehow? I wonder you could make uprobes/consumers > setup that would allocate/push many of ri instances that would not be freed > until the process exits? So I'm just relying on the existing MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH limit that is enforced by prepare_uretprobe anyways. But yes, we can have up to 64 instances in ri_pool. I did consider cleaning this up from ri_timer() (that would be a nice properly, because ri_timer fires after 100ms of inactivity), and my initial version did use lockless llist for that, but there is a bit of a problem: llist doesn't support popping single iter from the list (you can only atomically take *all* of the items) in lockless way. So my implementation had to swap the entire list, take one element out of it, and then put N - 1 items back. Which, when there are deep chains of uretprobes, would be quite an unnecessary CPU overhead. And I clearly didn't want to add locking anywhere in this hot path, of course. So I figured that at the absolute worst case we'll just keep MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH items in ri_pool until the task dies. That's not that much memory for a small subset of tasks on the system. One more idea I explored and rejected was to limit the size of ri_pool to something smaller than MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH, say just 16. But then there is a corner case of high-frequency long chain of uretprobes up to 64 depth, then returning through all of them, and then going into the same set of functions again, up to 64. So depth oscillates between 0 and full 64. In this case this ri_pool will be causing allocation for the majority of those invocations, completely defeating the purpose. So, in the end, it felt like 64 cached instances (worst case, if we actually ever reached such a deep chain) would be acceptable. Especially that commonly I wouldn't expect more than 3-4, actually. WDYT? > > jirka > > > + } else { > > + /* we might be racing with ri_timer(), so play it safe */ > > + ri_free(ri); > > + } > > } > > > > /* [...]
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:00:16AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 6:07 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:24:17PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > +static void free_ret_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask, > > > + struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned seq; > > > + > > > if (cleanup_hprobe) { > > > enum hprobe_state hstate; > > > > > > @@ -1897,8 +1923,22 @@ static void free_ret_instance(struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) > > > hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate); > > > } > > > > > > - kfree(ri->extra_consumers); > > > - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); > > > + /* > > > + * At this point return_instance is unlinked from utask's > > > + * return_instances list and this has become visible to ri_timer(). > > > + * If seqcount now indicates that ri_timer's return instance > > > + * processing loop isn't active, we can return ri into the pool of > > > + * to-be-reused return instances for future uretprobes. If ri_timer() > > > + * happens to be running right now, though, we fallback to safety and > > > + * just perform RCU-delated freeing of ri. > > > + */ > > > + if (raw_seqcount_try_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount, seq)) { > > > + /* immediate reuse of ri without RCU GP is OK */ > > > + ri_pool_push(utask, ri); > > > > should the push be limitted somehow? I wonder you could make uprobes/consumers > > setup that would allocate/push many of ri instances that would not be freed > > until the process exits? > > So I'm just relying on the existing MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH limit that is > enforced by prepare_uretprobe anyways. But yes, we can have up to 64 > instances in ri_pool. > > I did consider cleaning this up from ri_timer() (that would be a nice > properly, because ri_timer fires after 100ms of inactivity), and my > initial version did use lockless llist for that, but there is a bit of > a problem: llist doesn't support popping single iter from the list > (you can only atomically take *all* of the items) in lockless way. So > my implementation had to swap the entire list, take one element out of > it, and then put N - 1 items back. Which, when there are deep chains > of uretprobes, would be quite an unnecessary CPU overhead. And I > clearly didn't want to add locking anywhere in this hot path, of > course. > > So I figured that at the absolute worst case we'll just keep > MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH items in ri_pool until the task dies. That's not > that much memory for a small subset of tasks on the system. > > One more idea I explored and rejected was to limit the size of ri_pool > to something smaller than MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH, say just 16. But then > there is a corner case of high-frequency long chain of uretprobes up > to 64 depth, then returning through all of them, and then going into > the same set of functions again, up to 64. So depth oscillates between > 0 and full 64. In this case this ri_pool will be causing allocation > for the majority of those invocations, completely defeating the > purpose. > > So, in the end, it felt like 64 cached instances (worst case, if we > actually ever reached such a deep chain) would be acceptable. > Especially that commonly I wouldn't expect more than 3-4, actually. > > WDYT? ah ok, there's MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH limit for task, 64 should be fine thanks, jirka > > > > > jirka > > > > > + } else { > > > + /* we might be racing with ri_timer(), so play it safe */ > > > + ri_free(ri); > > > + } > > > } > > > > > > /* > > [...]
diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h index 1d449978558d..b1df7d792fa1 100644 --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/wait.h> #include <linux/timer.h> +#include <linux/seqlock.h> struct uprobe; struct vm_area_struct; @@ -124,6 +125,10 @@ struct uprobe_task { unsigned int depth; struct return_instance *return_instances; + struct return_instance *ri_pool; + struct timer_list ri_timer; + seqcount_t ri_seqcount; + union { struct { struct arch_uprobe_task autask; @@ -137,7 +142,6 @@ struct uprobe_task { }; struct uprobe *active_uprobe; - struct timer_list ri_timer; unsigned long xol_vaddr; struct arch_uprobe *auprobe; diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c index 2345aeb63d3b..1af950208c2b 100644 --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c @@ -1888,8 +1888,34 @@ unsigned long uprobe_get_trap_addr(struct pt_regs *regs) return instruction_pointer(regs); } -static void free_ret_instance(struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) +static void ri_pool_push(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct return_instance *ri) { + ri->cons_cnt = 0; + ri->next = utask->ri_pool; + utask->ri_pool = ri; +} + +static struct return_instance *ri_pool_pop(struct uprobe_task *utask) +{ + struct return_instance *ri = utask->ri_pool; + + if (likely(ri)) + utask->ri_pool = ri->next; + + return ri; +} + +static void ri_free(struct return_instance *ri) +{ + kfree(ri->extra_consumers); + kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); +} + +static void free_ret_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask, + struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) +{ + unsigned seq; + if (cleanup_hprobe) { enum hprobe_state hstate; @@ -1897,8 +1923,22 @@ static void free_ret_instance(struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe) hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate); } - kfree(ri->extra_consumers); - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); + /* + * At this point return_instance is unlinked from utask's + * return_instances list and this has become visible to ri_timer(). + * If seqcount now indicates that ri_timer's return instance + * processing loop isn't active, we can return ri into the pool of + * to-be-reused return instances for future uretprobes. If ri_timer() + * happens to be running right now, though, we fallback to safety and + * just perform RCU-delated freeing of ri. + */ + if (raw_seqcount_try_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount, seq)) { + /* immediate reuse of ri without RCU GP is OK */ + ri_pool_push(utask, ri); + } else { + /* we might be racing with ri_timer(), so play it safe */ + ri_free(ri); + } } /* @@ -1920,7 +1960,15 @@ void uprobe_free_utask(struct task_struct *t) ri = utask->return_instances; while (ri) { ri_next = ri->next; - free_ret_instance(ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); + ri = ri_next; + } + + /* free_ret_instance() above might add to ri_pool, so this loop should come last */ + ri = utask->ri_pool; + while (ri) { + ri_next = ri->next; + ri_free(ri); ri = ri_next; } @@ -1943,8 +1991,12 @@ static void ri_timer(struct timer_list *timer) /* RCU protects return_instance from freeing. */ guard(rcu)(); + write_seqcount_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount); + for_each_ret_instance_rcu(ri, utask->return_instances) hprobe_expire(&ri->hprobe, false); + + write_seqcount_end(&utask->ri_seqcount); } static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void) @@ -1956,6 +2008,7 @@ static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void) return NULL; timer_setup(&utask->ri_timer, ri_timer, 0); + seqcount_init(&utask->ri_seqcount); return utask; } @@ -1975,10 +2028,14 @@ static struct uprobe_task *get_utask(void) return current->utask; } -static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(void) +static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask) { struct return_instance *ri; + ri = ri_pool_pop(utask); + if (ri) + return ri; + ri = kzalloc(sizeof(*ri), GFP_KERNEL); if (!ri) return ZERO_SIZE_PTR; @@ -2119,7 +2176,7 @@ static void cleanup_return_instances(struct uprobe_task *utask, bool chained, rcu_assign_pointer(utask->return_instances, ri_next); utask->depth--; - free_ret_instance(ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */); ri = ri_next; } } @@ -2186,7 +2243,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs, return; free: - kfree(ri); + ri_free(ri); } /* Prepare to single-step probed instruction out of line. */ @@ -2385,8 +2442,7 @@ static struct return_instance *push_consumer(struct return_instance *ri, __u64 i if (unlikely(ri->cons_cnt > 0)) { ric = krealloc(ri->extra_consumers, sizeof(*ric) * ri->cons_cnt, GFP_KERNEL); if (!ric) { - kfree(ri->extra_consumers); - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu); + ri_free(ri); return ZERO_SIZE_PTR; } ri->extra_consumers = ric; @@ -2428,8 +2484,9 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs) struct uprobe_consumer *uc; bool has_consumers = false, remove = true; struct return_instance *ri = NULL; + struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask; - current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch; + utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch; list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) { bool session = uc->handler && uc->ret_handler; @@ -2449,12 +2506,12 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs) continue; if (!ri) - ri = alloc_return_instance(); + ri = alloc_return_instance(utask); if (session) ri = push_consumer(ri, uc->id, cookie); } - current->utask->auprobe = NULL; + utask->auprobe = NULL; if (!ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri)) prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri); @@ -2554,7 +2611,7 @@ void uprobe_handle_trampoline(struct pt_regs *regs) hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate); /* We already took care of hprobe, no need to waste more time on that. */ - free_ret_instance(ri, false /* !cleanup_hprobe */); + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, false /* !cleanup_hprobe */); ri = ri_next; } while (ri != next_chain); } while (!valid);
Instead of constantly allocating and freeing very short-lived struct return_instance, reuse it as much as possible within current task. For that, store a linked list of reusable return_instances within current->utask. The only complication is that ri_timer() might be still processing such return_instance. And so while the main uretprobe processing logic might be already done with return_instance and would be OK to immediately reuse it for the next uretprobe instance, it's not correct to unconditionally reuse it just like that. Instead we make sure that ri_timer() can't possibly be processing it by using seqcount_t, with ri_timer() being "a writer", while free_ret_instance() being "a reader". If, after we unlink return instance from utask->return_instances list, we know that ri_timer() hasn't gotten to processing utask->return_instances yet, then we can be sure that immediate return_instance reuse is OK, and so we put it onto utask->ri_pool for future (potentially, almost immediate) reuse. This change shows improvements both in single CPU performance (by avoiding relatively expensive kmalloc/free combon) and in terms of multi-CPU scalability, where you can see that per-CPU throughput doesn't decline as steeply with increased number of CPUs (which were previously attributed to kmalloc()/free() through profiling): BASELINE (latest perf/core) =========================== uretprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 1.898 ± 0.002M/s ( 1.898M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 3.574 ± 0.011M/s ( 1.787M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 5.279 ± 0.066M/s ( 1.760M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 6.824 ± 0.047M/s ( 1.706M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 8.339 ± 0.060M/s ( 1.668M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 9.812 ± 0.047M/s ( 1.635M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 11.030 ± 0.048M/s ( 1.576M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 12.453 ± 0.126M/s ( 1.557M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (10 cpus): 14.838 ± 0.044M/s ( 1.484M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (12 cpus): 17.092 ± 0.115M/s ( 1.424M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (14 cpus): 19.576 ± 0.022M/s ( 1.398M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (16 cpus): 22.264 ± 0.015M/s ( 1.391M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (24 cpus): 33.534 ± 0.078M/s ( 1.397M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (32 cpus): 43.262 ± 0.127M/s ( 1.352M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (40 cpus): 53.252 ± 0.080M/s ( 1.331M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (48 cpus): 55.778 ± 0.045M/s ( 1.162M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (56 cpus): 56.850 ± 0.227M/s ( 1.015M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (64 cpus): 62.005 ± 0.077M/s ( 0.969M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (72 cpus): 66.445 ± 0.236M/s ( 0.923M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (80 cpus): 68.353 ± 0.180M/s ( 0.854M/s/cpu) THIS PATCHSET (on top of latest perf/core) ========================================== uretprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 2.253 ± 0.004M/s ( 2.253M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 4.281 ± 0.003M/s ( 2.140M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 6.389 ± 0.027M/s ( 2.130M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 8.328 ± 0.005M/s ( 2.082M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 10.353 ± 0.001M/s ( 2.071M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 12.513 ± 0.010M/s ( 2.086M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 14.525 ± 0.017M/s ( 2.075M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 15.633 ± 0.013M/s ( 1.954M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (10 cpus): 19.532 ± 0.011M/s ( 1.953M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (12 cpus): 21.405 ± 0.009M/s ( 1.784M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (14 cpus): 24.857 ± 0.020M/s ( 1.776M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (16 cpus): 26.466 ± 0.018M/s ( 1.654M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (24 cpus): 40.513 ± 0.222M/s ( 1.688M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (32 cpus): 54.180 ± 0.074M/s ( 1.693M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (40 cpus): 66.100 ± 0.082M/s ( 1.652M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (48 cpus): 70.544 ± 0.068M/s ( 1.470M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (56 cpus): 74.494 ± 0.055M/s ( 1.330M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (64 cpus): 79.317 ± 0.029M/s ( 1.239M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (72 cpus): 84.875 ± 0.020M/s ( 1.179M/s/cpu) uretprobe-nop (80 cpus): 92.318 ± 0.224M/s ( 1.154M/s/cpu) For reference, with uprobe-nop we hit the following throughput: uprobe-nop (80 cpus): 143.485 ± 0.035M/s ( 1.794M/s/cpu) So now uretprobe stays a bit closer to that performance. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> --- include/linux/uprobes.h | 6 ++- kernel/events/uprobes.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)