Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> BPF programs currently consume a page each on RISCV. For systems with many BPF >> programs, this adds significant pressure to instruction TLB. High iTLB pressure >> usually causes slow down for the whole system. >> >> Song Liu introduced the BPF prog pack allocator[1] to mitigate the above issue. >> It packs multiple BPF programs into a single huge page. It is currently only >> enabled for the x86_64 BPF JIT. >> >> I enabled this allocator on the ARM64 BPF JIT[2]. It is being reviewed now. >> >> This patch series enables the BPF prog pack allocator for the RISCV BPF JIT. >> This series needs a patch[3] from the ARM64 series to work. >> >> ====================================================== >> Performance Analysis of prog pack allocator on RISCV64 >> ====================================================== >> >> Test setup: >> =========== >> >> Host machine: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye) >> Qemu Version: QEMU emulator version 8.0.3 (Debian 1:8.0.3+dfsg-1) >> u-boot-qemu Version: 2023.07+dfsg-1 >> opensbi Version: 1.3-1 >> >> To test the performance of the BPF prog pack allocator on RV, a stresser >> tool[4] linked below was built. This tool loads 8 BPF programs on the system and >> triggers 5 of them in an infinite loop by doing system calls. >> >> The runner script starts 20 instances of the above which loads 8*20=160 BPF >> programs on the system, 5*20=100 of which are being constantly triggered. >> The script is passed a command which would be run in the above environment. >> >> The script was run with following perf command: >> ./run.sh "perf stat -a \ >> -e iTLB-load-misses \ >> -e dTLB-load-misses \ >> -e dTLB-store-misses \ >> -e instructions \ >> --timeout 60000" >> >> The output of the above command is discussed below before and after enabling the >> BPF prog pack allocator. >> >> The tests were run on qemu-system-riscv64 with 8 cpus, 16G memory. The rootfs >> was created using Bjorn's riscv-cross-builder[5] docker container linked below. >> >> Results >> ======= >> >> Before enabling prog pack allocator: >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide': >> >> 4939048 iTLB-load-misses >> 5468689 dTLB-load-misses >> 465234 dTLB-store-misses >> 1441082097998 instructions >> >> 60.045791200 seconds time elapsed >> >> After enabling prog pack allocator: >> ----------------------------------- >> >> Performance counter stats for 'system wide': >> >> 3430035 iTLB-load-misses >> 5008745 dTLB-load-misses >> 409944 dTLB-store-misses >> 1441535637988 instructions >> >> 60.046296600 seconds time elapsed >> >> Improvements in metrics >> ======================= >> >> It was expected that the iTLB-load-misses would decrease as now a single huge >> page is used to keep all the BPF programs compared to a single page for each >> program earlier. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> The improvement in iTLB-load-misses: -30.5 % >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> I repeated this expriment more than 100 times in different setups and the >> improvement was always greater than 30%. >> >> This patch series is boot tested on the Starfive VisionFive 2 board[6]. >> The performance analysis was not done on the board because it doesn't >> expose iTLB-load-misses, etc. The stresser program was run on the board to test >> the loading and unloading of BPF programs >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220204185742.271030-1-song@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230626085811.3192402-1-puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx/ >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230626085811.3192402-2-puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx/ >> [4] https://github.com/puranjaymohan/BPF-Allocator-Bench >> [5] https://github.com/bjoto/riscv-cross-builder >> [6] https://www.starfivetech.com/en/site/boards >> >> Puranjay Mohan (2): >> riscv: Extend patch_text_nosync() for multiple pages >> bpf, riscv: use prog pack allocator in the BPF JIT > > I get a hang for "test_tag", but it's not directly related to your > series, but rather "remote fence.i". > > | rcu: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: > | rcu: 0-....: (1400 ticks this GP) idle=d5e4/1/0x4000000000000000 softirq=5542/5542 fqs=1862 > | rcu: (detected by 1, t=5252 jiffies, g=10253, q=195 ncpus=4) > | Task dump for CPU 0: > | task:kworker/0:5 state:R running task stack:0 pid:319 ppid:2 flags:0x00000008 > | Workqueue: events bpf_prog_free_deferred > | Call Trace: > | [<ffffffff80cbc444>] __schedule+0x2d0/0x940 > | watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 21s! [kworker/0:5:319] > | Modules linked in: nls_iso8859_1 drm fuse i2c_core drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight dm_mod configfs ip_tables x_tables > | CPU: 0 PID: 319 Comm: kworker/0:5 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc5 #1 > | Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) > | Workqueue: events bpf_prog_free_deferred > | epc : __sbi_rfence_v02_call.isra.0+0x74/0x11a > | ra : __sbi_rfence_v02+0xda/0x1a4 > | epc : ffffffff8000ab4c ra : ffffffff8000accc sp : ff20000001c9bbd0 > | gp : ffffffff82078c48 tp : ff600000888e6a40 t0 : ff20000001c9bd44 > | t1 : 0000000000000000 t2 : 0000000000000040 s0 : ff20000001c9bbf0 > | s1 : 0000000000000010 a0 : 0000000000000000 a1 : 0000000000000000 > | a2 : 0000000000000000 a3 : 0000000000000000 a4 : 0000000000000000 > | a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : 0000000000000000 a7 : 0000000052464e43 > | s2 : 000000000000ffff s3 : 00000000ffffffff s4 : ffffffff81667528 > | s5 : 0000000000000000 s6 : 0000000000000000 s7 : 0000000000000000 > | s8 : 0000000000000001 s9 : 0000000000000003 s10: 0000000000000040 > | s11: ffffffff8207d240 t3 : 000000000000000f t4 : 000000000000002a > | t5 : ff600000872df140 t6 : ffffffff81e26828 > | status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause: 8000000000000005 > | [<ffffffff8000ab4c>] __sbi_rfence_v02_call.isra.0+0x74/0x11a > | [<ffffffff8000accc>] __sbi_rfence_v02+0xda/0x1a4 > | [<ffffffff8000a886>] sbi_remote_fence_i+0x1e/0x26 > | [<ffffffff8000cee2>] flush_icache_all+0x1a/0x48 > | [<ffffffff80007736>] patch_text_nosync+0x6c/0x8c > | [<ffffffff8000f0f8>] bpf_arch_text_invalidate+0x62/0xac > | [<ffffffff8016c538>] bpf_prog_pack_free+0x9c/0x1b2 > | [<ffffffff8016c84a>] bpf_jit_binary_pack_free+0x20/0x4a > | [<ffffffff8000f198>] bpf_jit_free+0x56/0x9e > | [<ffffffff8016b43a>] bpf_prog_free_deferred+0x15a/0x182 > | [<ffffffff800576c4>] process_one_work+0x1b6/0x3d6 > | [<ffffffff80057d52>] worker_thread+0x84/0x378 > | [<ffffffff8005fc2c>] kthread+0xe8/0x108 > | [<ffffffff80003ffa>] ret_from_fork+0xe/0x20 > > I'm digging into that now, and I would appreciate if you could run the > test_tag on VF2 or similar (I'm missing that HW). > > It seems like we're hitting a bug with this series, so let's try to > figure out where the problems is, prior merging it. Hmm, it looks like the bpf_arch_text_invalidate() implementation is a bit problematic: +int bpf_arch_text_invalidate(void *dst, size_t len) +{ + __le32 *ptr; + int ret = 0; + u32 inval = 0; + + for (ptr = dst; ret == 0 && len >= sizeof(u32); len -= sizeof(u32)) { + mutex_lock(&text_mutex); + ret = patch_text_nosync(ptr++, &inval, sizeof(u32)); + mutex_unlock(&text_mutex); + } + + return ret; +} Each patch_text_nosync() is a remote fence.i, and for a big "len", we'll be flooded with remote fences. I think that's exactly what we hit with "test_tag". Björn
