[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210104232123.31378-1-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:21:22 -0800
From: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4] proc: Allow pid_revalidate() during LOOKUP_RCU
The pid_revalidate() function drops from RCU into REF lookup mode. When
many threads are resolving paths within /proc in parallel, this can
result in heavy spinlock contention on d_lockref as each thread tries to
grab a reference to the /proc dentry (and drop it shortly thereafter).
Investigation indicates that it is not necessary to drop RCU in
pid_revalidate(), as no RCU data is modified and the function never
sleeps. So, remove the LOOKUP_RCU check.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>
---
When running running ~100 parallel instances of "TZ=/etc/localtime ps -fe
>/dev/null" on a 100CPU machine, the %sys utilization reaches 90%, and perf
shows the following code path as being responsible for heavy contention on
the d_lockref spinlock:
walk_component()
lookup_fast()
d_revalidate()
pid_revalidate() // returns -ECHILD
unlazy_child()
lockref_get_not_dead(&nd->path.dentry->d_lockref) <-- contention
By applying this patch, %sys utilization falls to around 60% under the same
workload. Although this particular workload is a bit contrived, we have seen
some monitoring scripts which produced similarly high %sys time due to this
contention.
Changes in v4:
- Simplify by unconditionally calling pid_update_inode() from pid_revalidate,
and removing the LOOKUP_RCU check.
Changes in v3:
- Rather than call pid_update_inode() with flags, create
proc_inode_needs_update() to determine whether the call can be skipped.
- Restore the call to the security hook (see next patch).
Changes in v2:
- Remove get_pid_task_rcu_user() and get_proc_task_rcu(), since they were
unnecessary.
- Remove the call to security_task_to_inode().
fs/proc/base.c | 15 +++++++--------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
index f52217f432bc..633ef74e8dfd 100644
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -1974,19 +1974,18 @@ static int pid_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags)
{
struct inode *inode;
struct task_struct *task;
+ int ret = 0;
- if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
- return -ECHILD;
-
- inode = d_inode(dentry);
- task = get_proc_task(inode);
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ inode = d_inode_rcu(dentry);
+ task = pid_task(proc_pid(inode), PIDTYPE_PID);
if (task) {
pid_update_inode(task, inode);
- put_task_struct(task);
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
}
- return 0;
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ return ret;
}
static inline bool proc_inode_is_dead(struct inode *inode)
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists