On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 09:51:27AM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/8/2023 4:50 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 10:52 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 04:42:11PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
> >>> As said in the commit message, the command line for test is
> >>> "./map_perf_test 4 8 16384", because the default max_entries is 1000. If
> >>> using default max_entries and the number of CPUs is greater than 15,
> >>> use_percpu_counter will be false.
> >> Right. percpu or not depends on number of cpus.
> >>
> >>> I have double checked my local VM setup (8 CPUs + 16GB) and rerun the
> >>> test. For both "./map_perf_test 4 8" and "./map_perf_test 4 8 16384"
> >>> there are obvious performance degradation.
> >> ...
> >>> [root@hello bpf]# ./map_perf_test 4 8 16384
> >>> 2:hash_map_perf kmalloc 359201 events per sec
> >> ..
> >>> [root@hello bpf]# ./map_perf_test 4 8 16384
> >>> 4:hash_map_perf kmalloc 203983 events per sec
> >> this is indeed a degration in a VM.
> >>
> >>> I also run map_perf_test on a physical x86-64 host with 72 CPUs. The
> >>> performances for "./map_perf_test 4 8" are similar, but there is obvious
> >>> performance degradation for "./map_perf_test 4 8 16384"
> >> but... a degradation?
> Er, My bad. I miss-labeled "Before" and "After". v4 indeed introduces
> big performance degradation in physical host.
> >>
> >>> Before reuse-after-rcu-gp:
> >>>
> >>> [houtao@fedora bpf]$ sudo ./map_perf_test 4 8 16384
> >>> 1:hash_map_perf kmalloc 388088 events per sec
> >> ...
> >>> After reuse-after-rcu-gp:
> >>> [houtao@fedora bpf]$ sudo ./map_perf_test 4 8 16384
> >>> 5:hash_map_perf kmalloc 655628 events per sec
> >> This is a big improvement :) Not a degration.
> >> You always have to double check the numbers with perf report.
> >>
> >>> So could you please double check your setup and rerun map_perf_test ? If
> >>> there is no performance degradation, could you please share your setup
> >>> and your kernel configure file ?
> >> I'm testing on normal no-debug kernel. No kasan. No lockdep. HZ=1000
> >> Playing with it a bit more I found something interesting:
> >> map_perf_test 4 8 16348
> >> before/after has too much noise to be conclusive.
> >>
> >> So I did
> >> map_perf_test 4 8 16348 1000000
> >>
> >> and now I see significant degration from patch 3.
> >> It drops from 800k to 200k.
> >> And perf report confirms that heavy contention on sc->reuse_lock is the culprit.
> >> The following hack addresses most of the perf degradtion:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c b/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
> >> index fea1cb0c78bb..eeadc9359097 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
> >> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int bpf_ma_get_reusable_obj(struct bpf_mem_cache *c, int cnt)
> >> alloc = 0;
> >> head = NULL;
> >> tail = NULL;
> >> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sc->reuse_lock, flags);
> >> + if (raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sc->reuse_lock, flags)) {
> >> while (alloc < cnt) {
> >> obj = __llist_del_first(&sc->reuse_ready_head);
> >> if (obj) {
> >> @@ -206,6 +206,7 @@ static int bpf_ma_get_reusable_obj(struct bpf_mem_cache *c, int cnt)
> >> alloc++;
> >> }
> >> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sc->reuse_lock, flags);
> >> + }
> >>
> >> if (alloc) {
> >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> >> @@ -334,9 +335,11 @@ static void bpf_ma_add_to_reuse_ready_or_free(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
> >> sc->reuse_ready_tail = NULL;
> >> WARN_ON_ONCE(!llist_empty(&sc->wait_for_free));
> >> __llist_add_batch(head, tail, &sc->wait_for_free);
> >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sc->reuse_lock, flags);
> >> call_rcu_tasks_trace(&sc->rcu, free_rcu);
> >> + } else {
> >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sc->reuse_lock, flags);
> >> }
> >> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sc->reuse_lock, flags);
> >> }
> >>
> >> It now drops from 800k to 450k.
> >> And perf report shows that both reuse is happening and slab is working hard to satisfy kmalloc/kfree.
> >> So we may consider per-cpu waiting_for_rcu_gp and per-bpf-ma waiting_for_rcu_task_trace_gp lists.
> > Sorry. per-cpu waiting_for_rcu_gp is what patch 3 does already.
> > I meant per-cpu reuse_ready and per-bpf-ma waiting_for_rcu_task_trace_gp.
> Yes, I known, because I had just proposed it in the email yesterday.
> >
> > Also noticed that the overhead of shared reuse_ready list
> > comes both from the contended lock and from cache misses
> > when one cpu pushes to the list after RCU GP and another
> > cpu removes.
> >
> > Also low/batch/high watermark are all wrong in patch 3.
> > low=32 and high=96 makes no sense when it's not a single list.
> > I'm experimenting with 32 for all three heuristics.
> >
> > Another thing I noticed that per-cpu prepare_reuse and free_by_rcu
> > are redundant.
> > unit_free() can push into free_by_rcu directly
> > then reuse_bulk() can fill it up with free_llist_extra and
> > move them into waiting_for_gp.
> Yes. Indeed missing that.
> >
> > All these _tail optimizations are obscuring the code and make it hard
> > to notice these issues.
> >
> >> For now I still prefer to see v5 with per-bpf-ma and no _tail optimization.
> >>
> >> Answering your other email:
> >>
> >>> I see your point. I will continue to debug the memory usage difference
> >>> between v3 and v4.
> >> imo it's a waste of time to continue analyzing performance based on bench in patch 2.
> Don't agree with that. I still think the potential memory usage of v4 is
> a problem and the difference memory usage between v3 and v4 reveals that
> there is some peculiarity in RCU subsystem, because the difference comes
> from the duration of RCU grace period. We need to find out why and fix
> or workaround that.
A tight loop in the kernel can extend RCU grace periods, especially
for kernels built with CONFIG_PREEPTION=n. Placing things like
cond_resched() in such loops can help. Of course, if you are in an
RCU read-side critical section (or holding a spinlock), you will need
to exit, cond_resched(), then re-enter. Taking care to ensure that the
state upon re-entry is valid. After all, having exited either type of
critical section, anything might happen.
Thanx, Paul
> >>> I don't think so. Let's considering the per-cpu list first. Assume the
> >>> normal RCU grace period is about 30ms and we are tracing the IO latency
> >>> of a normal SSD. The iops is about 176K per seconds, so before one RCU
> >>> GP is passed, we will need to allocate about 176 * 30 = 5.2K elements.
> >>> For the per-ma list, when the number of CPUs increased, it is easy to
> >>> make the list contain thousands of elements.
> >> That would be true only if there were no scheduling events in all of 176K ops.
> >> Which is not the case.
> >> I'm not sure why you're saying that RCU GP is 30ms.
> Because these freed elements will be freed after one RCU GP and in v4
> there is only one RCU callback per-cpu, so before one RCU GP is expired,
> these freed elements will be accumulated on the list.
> >> In CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE rcu_read_lock/unlock are true nops.
> >> Every sched event is sort-of implicit rcu_read_lock/unlock.
> >> Network and block IO doesn't process 176K packets without resched.
> >> Don't know how block does it, but in networking NAPI will process 64 packets and will yield softirq.
> >>
> >> For small size buckets low_watermark=32 and high=96.
> >> We typically move 32 elements at a time from one list to another.
> >> A bunch of elements maybe sitting in free_by_rcu and moving them to waiting_for_gp
> >> is not instant, but once __free_rcu_tasks_trace is called we need to take
> >> elements from waiting_for_gp one at a time and kfree it one at a time.
> >> So optimizing the move from free_by_rcu into waiting_for_gp is not worth the code complexity.
> >>
> >>> Before I post v5, I want to know the reason why per-bpf-ma list is
> >>> introduced. Previously, I though it was used to handle the case in which
> >>> allocation and freeing are done on different CPUs.
> >> Correct. per-bpf-ma list is necessary to avoid OOM-ing due to slow rcu_tasks_trace GP.
> >>
> >>> And as we can see
> >>> from the benchmark result above and in v3, the performance and the
> >>> memory usage of v4 for add_del_on_diff_cpu is better than v3.
> >> bench from patch 2 is invalid. Hence no conclusion can be made.
> >>
> >> So far the only bench we can trust and analyze is map_perf_test.
> >> Please make bench in patch 2 yield the cpu after few updates.
> >> Earlier I suggested to stick to 10, but since NAPI can do 64 at a time.
> >> 64 updates is realistic too. A thousand is not.
> Will do that.
>
