[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080527082242.GA3473@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:52:42 +0530
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To: Srinivasa D S <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...hat.com,
jkenisto@...ibm.com, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] To improve kretprobe scalability
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:56:39PM +0530, Srinivasa D S wrote:
> On Thursday 22 May 2008 05:02:35 am Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 06:32:17 +0530
> >
> > Srinivasa D S <srinivasa@...ibm.com> wrote:
...
> Resending the patch, Again
>
>
> Currently list of kretprobe instances are stored in kretprobe object (as
> used_instances,free_instances) and in kretprobe hash table. We have one
> global kretprobe lock to serialise the access to these lists. This causes
> only one kretprobe handler to execute at a time. Hence affects system
> performance, particularly on SMP systems and when return probe is set on
> lot of functions (like on all systemcalls).
>
> Solution proposed here gives fine-grain locks that performs better on SMP
> system compared to present kretprobe implementation.
>
> Solution:
> 1) Instead of having one global lock to protect kretprobe instances
> present
> in kretprobe object and kretprobe hash table. We will have two locks, one lock
> for protecting kretprobe hash table and another lock for kretporbe object.
>
> 2) We hold lock present in kretprobe object while we modify kretprobe
> instance in
> kretprobe object and we hold per-hash-list lock while modifying kretprobe
> instances
> present in that hash list. To prevent deadlock, we never grab a per-hash-list
> lock while holding a kretprobe lock.
>
> 3) We can remove used_instances from struct kretprobe, as we can track used
> instances of kretprobe instances using kretprobe hash table.
>
> Time duration for kernel compilation ("make -j 8") on a 8-way ppc64 system
> with return probes set on all systemcalls looks like this.
>
> cacheline non-cacheline Un-patched kernel
> aligned patch aligned patch
> ===============================================================================
> real 9m46.784s 9m54.412s 10m2.450s
> user 40m5.715s 40m7.142s 40m4.273s
> sys 2m57.754s 2m58.583s 3m17.430s
> ===========================================================
>
> Time duration for kernel compilation ("make -j 8) on the same system, when
> kernel is not probed.
> =========================
> real 9m26.389s
> user 40m8.775s
> sys 2m7.283s
> =========================
>
> Please let me know your comments on the patch attached here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists