Message-ID: <2065867235.184322.1424969735591.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:55:35 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] module: Optimize __module_address() using a
 latched RB-tree

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Cc: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...ux.intel.com>, "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>, x86@...nel.org,
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:43:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] module: Optimize __module_address() using a latched RB-tree
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:02:43PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Perhaps you could use mod_value() below, and introduce a
> > "mod_size()" too. This would keep the init vs core selection
> > out of the traversal code.
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> > Is it customary to define static variables in the
> > middle of a C file ?
> 
> Dunno, it seemed like a good a place as any.

My personal coding-style is to put all definitions
at the top of C files, but I don't know if it's within
the kernel coding style guide lines or just something
I'm personally used to. I have no strong opinion here.

More nits inline below,

> 
> > The rest looks good, especially for use of the latch.
> > I'd be tempted to turn "0, 1, 2, 3" into an enum though,
> > so we can follow in the code what each of those array
> > entry really means.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ---
> Subject: module: Optimize __module_address() using a latched RB-tree
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Thu Feb 26 10:57:34 CET 2015
> 
> Currently __module_address() is using a linear search through all
> modules in order to find the module corresponding to the provided
> address. With a lot of modules this can take a lot of time.
> 
> One of the users of this is __kernel_text_address() which is employed
> in many stack unwinders; which in turn are used by perf-callchain and
> ftrace (possibly from NMI context).
> 
> So by optimizing __module_address() we optimize many stack unwinders
> which are used by both perf and tracing in performance sensitive code.
> 
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/module.h |   19 +++-
>  kernel/module.c        |  212
>  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
>  #include <linux/jump_label.h>
>  #include <linux/export.h>
> +#include <linux/rbtree.h>
>  
>  #include <linux/percpu.h>
>  #include <asm/module.h>
> @@ -210,6 +211,11 @@ enum module_state {
>  	MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED,	/* Still setting it up. */
>  };
>  
> +struct module_node {
> +	struct module *mod;
> +	struct rb_node node;
> +};
> +
>  struct module {
>  	enum module_state state;
>  
> @@ -269,8 +275,15 @@ struct module {
>  	/* Startup function. */
>  	int (*init)(void);
>  
> -	/* If this is non-NULL, vfree after init() returns */
> -	void *module_init;
> +	/*
> +	 * If this is non-NULL, vfree after init() returns
> +	 *
> +	 * cacheline align here, such that:
> +	 *   module_init, module_core, init_size, core_size and
> +	 *   tree_node[0]
> +	 * are on the same cacheline.

Fat-fingered newline ? ;)

> +	 */
> +	void *module_init	____cacheline_aligned;
>  
>  	/* Here is the actual code + data, vfree'd on unload. */
>  	void *module_core;
> @@ -281,6 +294,8 @@ struct module {
>  	/* The size of the executable code in each section.  */
>  	unsigned int init_text_size, core_text_size;
>  
> +	struct module_node tree_node[4];

4 -> nr_module_addr_latch

> +
>  	/* Size of RO sections of the module (text+rodata) */
>  	unsigned int init_ro_size, core_ro_size;
>  
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -102,6 +102,204 @@
>  DEFINE_MUTEX(module_mutex);
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(module_mutex);
>  static LIST_HEAD(modules);
> +
> +
> +/*
> + * Use a latched RB-tree for __module_address()
> + *
> + * The latch concept is a multi-value concurrency data structure which
> allows
> + * unserialized access and guarantees at least one version is stable.
> + *
> + * It is employed here to optimize __module_address(), which needs to find
> the
> + * module (if any) associated with an address. Such questions are best
> answered
> + * using a binary search tree.
> + *
> + * Since modules use non-overlapping memory ranges we can use a regular
> RB-tree
> + * (as opposed to the interval tree). However, BSTs cannot be iterated while
> + * modified.
> + *
> + * To overcome this we use the latched RB-tree, it basically consists of two
> + * RB-trees which are modified in order, ensuring one is always consistent.
> + *
> + * Things are somewhat more complicated because there are two ranges per
> + * module, but other than that its pretty straight forward.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +enum {
> +	latch0_core = 0,
> +	latch1_core = 1,
> +	latch0_init = 2,
> +	latch1_init = 3,

     nr_module_addr_latch,

Perhaps namespace this enum and move it to module.h so we
can expose nr_module_addr_latch ?

> +};
> +
> +enum {
> +	latch_bit = 0x01,
> +	init_bit  = 0x02,
> +};
> +
> +struct latch_tree_root {
> +	seqcount_t	seq;
> +	struct rb_root	tree[2];
> +};
> +
> +static unsigned long mod_value(struct module *mod, int idx)
> +{
> +	if (idx & init_bit)

Hrm, my first reflex is to look for a "init_bit" variable here.
Should we use caps for enum entries instead ? e.g. INIT_BIT ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> +		return (unsigned long)mod->module_init;
> +	else
> +		return (unsigned long)mod->module_core;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long mod_size(struct module *mod, int idx)
> +{
> +	if (idx & init_bit)
> +		return mod->init_size;
> +	else
> +		return mod->core_size;
> +}
> +
> +static struct module *mod_entry(struct rb_node *n)
> +{
> +	struct module_node *mn = container_of(n, struct module_node, node);
> +	return mn->mod;
> +}
> +
> +static int mod_node_idx(struct module *m, struct rb_node *n)
> +{
> +	struct module_node *mn = container_of(n, struct module_node, node);
> +	int idx = mn - m->tree_node;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(mn->mod != m);
> +	BUG_ON((unsigned)idx > 3);
> +
> +	return idx;
> +}
> +
> +static void __tree_insert(struct latch_tree_root *mod_tree, struct module
> *mod, int idx)
> +{
> +	struct rb_root *root = &mod_tree->tree[idx & latch_bit];
> +	struct module_node *mn = &mod->tree_node[idx];
> +	struct rb_node **link = &root->rb_node;
> +	struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
> +	unsigned long mod_val, m_val;
> +	struct module *m;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	mn->mod = mod;
> +	mod_val = mod_value(mod, idx);
> +
> +	while (*link) {
> +		parent = *link;
> +		m = mod_entry(parent);
> +		i = mod_node_idx(m, parent);
> +		m_val = mod_value(m, i);
> +
> +		if (mod_val < m_val)
> +			link = &parent->rb_left;
> +		else
> +			link = &parent->rb_right;
> +	}
> +
> +	rb_link_node(&mn->node, parent, link);
> +	rb_insert_color(&mn->node, root);
> +}
> +
> +static void __tree_remove(struct latch_tree_root *mod_tree, struct module
> *mod, int idx)
> +{
> +	struct rb_root *root = &mod_tree->tree[idx & latch_bit];
> +	struct module_node *mn = &mod->tree_node[idx];
> +
> +	rb_erase(&mn->node, root);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * struct module is arranged such that:
> + *
> + *   module_init, module_core, init_size, core_size,
> + *   init_text_size, core_text_size and tree_node[0]
> + *
> + * are on the same cacheline, therefore if the below iteration is
> + * on latch0 and all module init has completed, we'll only hit
> + * tree_node[0] and every intermediate level will hit only a single
> + * cacheline.
> + *
> + * Furthermore, by ensuring init_text_size and core_text_size are
> + * also in this same cacheline we've made sure is_module_text_address()
> + * will also not require additional lines.
> + */
> +static struct module *__tree_find(struct rb_root *r, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	struct rb_node *n = r->rb_node;
> +	unsigned long m_val, m_size;
> +
> +	while (n) {
> +		struct module *m = mod_entry(n);
> +		int idx = mod_node_idx(m, n);
> +
> +		m_val = mod_value(m, idx);
> +		m_size = mod_size(m, idx);
> +
> +		if (addr < m_val)
> +			n = n->rb_left;
> +		else if (addr >= m_val + m_size)
> +			n = n->rb_right;
> +		else
> +			return m;
> +	}
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static struct latch_tree_root mod_tree;
> +
> +static void mod_tree_insert(struct module *mod)
> +{
> +	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&mod_tree.seq);
> +	__tree_insert(&mod_tree, mod, latch0_core);
> +	if (mod->init_size)
> +		__tree_insert(&mod_tree, mod, latch0_init);
> +	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&mod_tree.seq);
> +	__tree_insert(&mod_tree, mod, latch1_core);
> +	if (mod->init_size)
> +		__tree_insert(&mod_tree, mod, latch1_init);
> +}
> +
> +static void mod_tree_remove_init(struct module *mod)
> +{
> +	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&mod_tree.seq);
> +	if (mod->init_size)
> +		__tree_remove(&mod_tree, mod, latch0_init);
> +	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&mod_tree.seq);
> +	if (mod->init_size)
> +		__tree_remove(&mod_tree, mod, latch1_init);
> +}
> +
> +static void mod_tree_remove(struct module *mod)
> +{
> +	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&mod_tree.seq);
> +	__tree_remove(&mod_tree, mod, latch0_core);
> +	if (mod->init_size)
> +		__tree_remove(&mod_tree, mod, latch0_init);
> +	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&mod_tree.seq);
> +	__tree_remove(&mod_tree, mod, latch1_core);
> +	if (mod->init_size)
> +		__tree_remove(&mod_tree, mod, latch1_init);
> +}
> +
> +static struct module *mod_tree_find(unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	struct module *m;
> +	unsigned int seq;
> +
> +	do {
> +		seq = raw_read_seqcount(&mod_tree.seq);
> +		m = __tree_find(&mod_tree.tree[seq & latch_bit], addr);
> +	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&mod_tree.seq, seq));
> +
> +	return m;
> +}
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KGDB_KDB
>  struct list_head *kdb_modules = &modules; /* kdb needs the list of modules
>  */
>  #endif /* CONFIG_KGDB_KDB */
> @@ -1854,6 +2052,7 @@ static void free_module(struct module *m
>  	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>  	/* Unlink carefully: kallsyms could be walking list. */
>  	list_del_rcu(&mod->list);
> +	mod_tree_remove(mod);
>  	/* Remove this module from bug list, this uses list_del_rcu */
>  	module_bug_cleanup(mod);
>  	/* Wait for RCU synchronizing before releasing mod->list and buglist. */
> @@ -3098,6 +3297,7 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struc
>  	mod->symtab = mod->core_symtab;
>  	mod->strtab = mod->core_strtab;
>  #endif
> +	mod_tree_remove_init(mod);
>  	unset_module_init_ro_nx(mod);
>  	module_arch_freeing_init(mod);
>  	mod->module_init = NULL;
> @@ -3168,6 +3368,7 @@ static int add_unformed_module(struct mo
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  	list_add_rcu(&mod->list, &modules);
> +	mod_tree_insert(mod);
>  	err = 0;
>  
>  out:
> @@ -3367,6 +3568,7 @@ static int load_module(struct load_info
>  	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>  	/* Unlink carefully: kallsyms could be walking list. */
>  	list_del_rcu(&mod->list);
> +	mod_tree_remove(mod);
>  	wake_up_all(&module_wq);
>  	/* Wait for RCU synchronizing before releasing mod->list. */
>  	synchronize_rcu();
> @@ -3810,13 +4012,13 @@ struct module *__module_address(unsigned
>  	if (addr < module_addr_min || addr > module_addr_max)
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list) {
> +	mod = mod_tree_find(addr);
> +	if (mod) {
> +		BUG_ON(!within_module(addr, mod));
>  		if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
> -			continue;
> -		if (within_module(addr, mod))
> -			return mod;
> +			mod = NULL;
>  	}
> -	return NULL;
> +	return mod;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__module_address);
>  
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.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