Skip to content

Commit e0925f2

Browse files
anakryikoPeter Zijlstra
authored andcommitted
uprobes: add speculative lockless VMA-to-inode-to-uprobe resolution
Given filp_cachep is marked SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU (and FMODE_BACKING files, a special case, now goes through RCU-delated freeing), we can safely access vma->vm_file->f_inode field locklessly under just rcu_read_lock() protection, which enables looking up uprobe from uprobes_tree completely locklessly and speculatively without the need to acquire mmap_lock for reads. In most cases, anyway, assuming that there are no parallel mm and/or VMA modifications. The underlying struct file's memory won't go away from under us (even if struct file can be reused in the meantime). We rely on newly added mmap_lock_speculate_{try_begin,retry}() helpers to validate that mm_struct stays intact for entire duration of this speculation. If not, we fall back to mmap_lock-protected lookup. The speculative logic is written in such a way that it will safely handle any garbage values that might be read from vma or file structs. Benchmarking results speak for themselves. BEFORE (latest tip/perf/core) ============================= uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 3.384 ± 0.004M/s ( 3.384M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 5.456 ± 0.005M/s ( 2.728M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 7.863 ± 0.015M/s ( 2.621M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 9.442 ± 0.008M/s ( 2.360M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 11.036 ± 0.013M/s ( 2.207M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 10.884 ± 0.019M/s ( 1.814M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 7.897 ± 0.145M/s ( 1.128M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 10.021 ± 0.128M/s ( 1.253M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (10 cpus): 9.932 ± 0.170M/s ( 0.993M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (12 cpus): 8.369 ± 0.056M/s ( 0.697M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (14 cpus): 8.678 ± 0.017M/s ( 0.620M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 7.392 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.462M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (24 cpus): 5.326 ± 0.178M/s ( 0.222M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 5.426 ± 0.059M/s ( 0.170M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (40 cpus): 5.262 ± 0.070M/s ( 0.132M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (48 cpus): 6.121 ± 0.010M/s ( 0.128M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (56 cpus): 6.252 ± 0.035M/s ( 0.112M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 7.644 ± 0.023M/s ( 0.119M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (72 cpus): 7.781 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.108M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (80 cpus): 8.992 ± 0.048M/s ( 0.112M/s/cpu) AFTER ===== uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 3.534 ± 0.033M/s ( 3.534M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 6.701 ± 0.007M/s ( 3.351M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 10.031 ± 0.007M/s ( 3.344M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 13.003 ± 0.012M/s ( 3.251M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 16.274 ± 0.006M/s ( 3.255M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 19.563 ± 0.024M/s ( 3.261M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 22.696 ± 0.054M/s ( 3.242M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 24.534 ± 0.010M/s ( 3.067M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (10 cpus): 30.475 ± 0.117M/s ( 3.047M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (12 cpus): 33.371 ± 0.017M/s ( 2.781M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (14 cpus): 38.864 ± 0.004M/s ( 2.776M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 41.476 ± 0.020M/s ( 2.592M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (24 cpus): 64.696 ± 0.021M/s ( 2.696M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 85.054 ± 0.027M/s ( 2.658M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (40 cpus): 101.979 ± 0.032M/s ( 2.549M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (48 cpus): 110.518 ± 0.056M/s ( 2.302M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (56 cpus): 117.737 ± 0.020M/s ( 2.102M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 124.613 ± 0.079M/s ( 1.947M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (72 cpus): 133.239 ± 0.032M/s ( 1.851M/s/cpu) uprobe-nop (80 cpus): 142.037 ± 0.138M/s ( 1.775M/s/cpu) Previously total throughput was maxing out at 11mln/s, and gradually declining past 8 cores. With this change, it now keeps growing with each added CPU, reaching 142mln/s at 80 CPUs (this was measured on a 80-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6138 CPU @ 2.00GHz). Suggested-by: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
1 parent 83e3dc9 commit e0925f2

File tree

1 file changed

+45
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+45
-0
lines changed

kernel/events/uprobes.c

Lines changed: 45 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -2294,13 +2294,58 @@ static int is_trap_at_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr)
22942294
return is_trap_insn(&opcode);
22952295
}
22962296

2297+
static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_speculative(unsigned long bp_vaddr)
2298+
{
2299+
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
2300+
struct uprobe *uprobe = NULL;
2301+
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
2302+
struct file *vm_file;
2303+
loff_t offset;
2304+
unsigned int seq;
2305+
2306+
guard(rcu)();
2307+
2308+
if (!mmap_lock_speculate_try_begin(mm, &seq))
2309+
return NULL;
2310+
2311+
vma = vma_lookup(mm, bp_vaddr);
2312+
if (!vma)
2313+
return NULL;
2314+
2315+
/*
2316+
* vm_file memory can be reused for another instance of struct file,
2317+
* but can't be freed from under us, so it's safe to read fields from
2318+
* it, even if the values are some garbage values; ultimately
2319+
* find_uprobe_rcu() + mmap_lock_speculation_end() check will ensure
2320+
* that whatever we speculatively found is correct
2321+
*/
2322+
vm_file = READ_ONCE(vma->vm_file);
2323+
if (!vm_file)
2324+
return NULL;
2325+
2326+
offset = (loff_t)(vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (bp_vaddr - vma->vm_start);
2327+
uprobe = find_uprobe_rcu(vm_file->f_inode, offset);
2328+
if (!uprobe)
2329+
return NULL;
2330+
2331+
/* now double check that nothing about MM changed */
2332+
if (mmap_lock_speculate_retry(mm, seq))
2333+
return NULL;
2334+
2335+
return uprobe;
2336+
}
2337+
22972338
/* assumes being inside RCU protected region */
22982339
static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_rcu(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int *is_swbp)
22992340
{
23002341
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
23012342
struct uprobe *uprobe = NULL;
23022343
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
23032344

2345+
uprobe = find_active_uprobe_speculative(bp_vaddr);
2346+
if (uprobe)
2347+
return uprobe;
2348+
23042349
mmap_read_lock(mm);
23052350
vma = vma_lookup(mm, bp_vaddr);
23062351
if (vma) {

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)