linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGudoHEKYYmbJ+3SEHDeqi9TLoLjpFNf9HdAQXkuWSd2TKhJQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Aug 2023 20:33:21 +0200
From:   Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] execve scalability issues, part 1

On 8/21/23, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com> wrote:
> To start I figured I'm going to bench about as friendly case as it gets
> -- statically linked *separate* binaries all doing execve in a loop.
>
> I borrowed the bench from found here:
> http://apollo.backplane.com/DFlyMisc/doexec.c
>
> $ cc -static -O2 -o static-doexec doexec.c
> $ ./static-doexec $(nproc)
>
> It prints a result every second (warning: first line is garbage).
>
> My test box is temporarily only 26 cores and even at this scale I run
> into massive lock contention stemming from back-to-back calls to
> percpu_counter_init (and _destroy later).
>
> While not a panacea, one simple thing to do here is to batch these ops.
> Since the term "batching" is already used in the file, I decided to
> refer to it as "grouping" instead.
>
> Even if this code could be patched to dodge these counters,  I would
> argue a high-traffic alloc/free consumer is only a matter of time so it
> makes sense to facilitate it.
>
> With the fix I get an ok win, to quote from the commit:
>> Even at a very modest scale of 26 cores (ops/s):
>> before: 133543.63
>> after:  186061.81 (+39%)
>

So to sum up, a v3 of the patchset is queued up here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dennis/percpu.git/log/?h=for-next

For interested I temporarily got my hands on something exceeding the
hand watch scale benched above -- a 192-way AMD EPYC 7R13 box (2
sockets x 48 cores x 2 threads).

A 6.5 kernel + the patchset only gets south of 140k execs/s when
running ./static-doexec 192

According to perf top:
  51.04%  [kernel]           [k] osq_lock
   6.82%  [kernel]           [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted
   2.98%  [kernel]           [k] _atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave
   1.62%  [kernel]           [k] rcu_cblist_dequeue
   1.54%  [kernel]           [k] refcount_dec_not_one
   1.51%  [kernel]           [k] __mod_lruvec_page_state
   1.46%  [kernel]           [k] put_cred_rcu
   1.34%  [kernel]           [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
   0.94%  [kernel]           [k] srso_alias_safe_ret
   0.81%  [kernel]           [k] memset_orig
   0.77%  [kernel]           [k] unmap_page_range
   0.73%  [kernel]           [k] _compound_head
   0.72%  [kernel]           [k] kmem_cache_free

Then bpftrace -e 'kprobe:osq_lock { @[kstack()] = count(); }' shows:

@[
    osq_lock+1
    __mutex_lock_killable_slowpath+19
    mutex_lock_killable+62
    pcpu_alloc+1219
    __alloc_percpu_gfp+18
    __percpu_counter_init_many+43
    mm_init+727
    mm_alloc+78
    alloc_bprm+138
    do_execveat_common.isra.0+103
    __x64_sys_execve+55
    do_syscall_64+54
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+110
]: 637370

@[
    osq_lock+1
    __mutex_lock_killable_slowpath+19
    mutex_lock_killable+62
    pcpu_alloc+1219
    __alloc_percpu+21
    mm_init+577
    mm_alloc+78
    alloc_bprm+138
    do_execveat_common.isra.0+103
    __x64_sys_execve+55
    do_syscall_64+54
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+110
]: 638036

That is per-cpu allocation is still on top at this scale.

But more importantly there are *TWO* unrelated back-to-back per-cpu
allocs -- one by rss counters and one by mm_alloc_cid.

That is to say per-cpu alloc scalability definitely needs to get
fixed, I'll ponder about it.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>