Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 5/17/22 11:57 PM, Feng Zhou wrote:
在 2022/5/18 下午2:32, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:27 PM Feng zhou <zhoufeng.zf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

We encountered bad case on big system with 96 CPUs that
alloc_htab_elem() would last for 1ms. The reason is that after the
prealloc hashtab has no free elems, when trying to update, it will still
grab spin_locks of all cpus. If there are multiple update users, the
competition is very serious.

So this patch add is_empty in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist
having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's
freelist.

Before patch: hash_map performance
./map_perf_test 1

could you explain what parameter '1' means here?

0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 975345 events per sec
4:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 855367 events per sec
12:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 860862 events per sec
8:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 849561 events per sec
3:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 849074 events per sec
6:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 847120 events per sec
10:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 845047 events per sec
5:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 841266 events per sec
14:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 849740 events per sec
2:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 839598 events per sec
9:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 838695 events per sec
11:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 845390 events per sec
7:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 834865 events per sec
13:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 842619 events per sec
1:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 804231 events per sec
15:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 795314 events per sec

hash_map the worst: no free
./map_perf_test 2048
6:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28628 events per sec
5:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28553 events per sec
11:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28543 events per sec
3:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28444 events per sec
1:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28418 events per sec
7:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28427 events per sec
13:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28330 events per sec
14:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28263 events per sec
9:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28211 events per sec
15:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28193 events per sec
12:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28190 events per sec
10:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28129 events per sec
8:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28116 events per sec
4:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 27906 events per sec
2:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 27801 events per sec
0:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 27416 events per sec
3:worse hash_map_perf pre-alloc 28188 events per sec

ftrace trace

0)               |  htab_map_update_elem() {
0)   0.198 us    |    migrate_disable();
0)               |    _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() {
0)   0.157 us    |      preempt_count_add();
0)   0.538 us    |    }
0)   0.260 us    |    lookup_elem_raw();
0)               |    alloc_htab_elem() {
0)               |      __pcpu_freelist_pop() {
0)               |        _raw_spin_lock() {
0)   0.152 us    |          preempt_count_add();
0)   0.352 us    |          native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
0)   1.065 us    |        }
                  |        ...
0)               |        _raw_spin_unlock() {
0)   0.254 us    |          preempt_count_sub();
0)   0.555 us    |        }
0) + 25.188 us   |      }
0) + 25.486 us   |    }
0)               |    _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore() {
0)   0.155 us    |      preempt_count_sub();
0)   0.454 us    |    }
0)   0.148 us    |    migrate_enable();
0) + 28.439 us   |  }

The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition
to 16c, there is an extralist.
Is this with small max_entries and a large number of cpus?

If so, probably better to fix would be to artificially
bump max_entries to be 4x of num_cpus.
Racy is_empty check still wastes the loop.

This hash_map worst testcase with 16 CPUs, map's max_entries is 1000.

This is the test case I constructed, it is to fill the map on purpose, and then

continue to update, just to reproduce the problem phenomenon.

The bad case we encountered with 96 CPUs, map's max_entries is 10240.

For such cases, most likely the map is *almost* full. What is the performance if we increase map size, e.g., from 10240 to 16K(16192)?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux