[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35cefef5-571f-a7b2-c964-8c974d4e416c@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:50:17 +0800
From: Matt Wu <wuqiang.matt@...edance.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mattwu@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kretprobe scalability improvement
On 2021/7/5 AM7:59, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:16:47 +0100
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> Would it make sense to just reuse kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c for
>> kretprobes?
>
> Hmm, I don't think so.
> It seems that what Wuqiang proposed is more efficient than the
> percpu_freelist, and it will be less efficient from the viewpoint
> of memory usage because kretprobe freelist manages instance pool
> among all CPUs (which can be unbalanced, sometimes 95% used by one
> core, sometimes used evenly).
>
> Actually, the best solution is to have per-task fixed-size instance
> pool which is shared by all kretprobes (e.g. 4kb/task), because
> the instance makes a "shadow stack" for each task. This may consume
> more memory but is not increased by adding kretprobes, and should be
> scalable.
Yes, per-task pool is the best for scalability.
How about allocating the kretprobe instance just from stack ? The size
of kretprobe instance is very likely to be "small", then most of allocs
could be fed quickly from current stack.
Expanding default kernel stack by 1 page is also an option, but the
impact of memory occupation would be huge, after all the kretprobe is
a rare thing and uncertain to normal threads.
Regards,
Matt Wu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists