hi, Alexey Gladkov,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:44:31AM +0200, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:47:22AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > hi, Eric,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:44:43PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:32 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> FYI, we noticed a -41.9% regression of stress-ng.sigsegv.ops_per_sec due to commit
> > > >> 08ed4efad684 ("[PATCH v10 6/9] Reimplement RLIMIT_SIGPENDING on top of ucounts")
> > > >
> > > > Ouch.
> > >
> > > We were cautiously optimistic when no test problems showed up from
> > > the last posting that there was nothing to look at here.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it looks like the bots just missed the last posting.
> >
> > this report is upon v10. do you have newer version which hope bot test?
>
> Yes. I posted a new version of this patch set. I would be very grateful if
> you could test it.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1619094428.git.legion@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
we tested this v11 version, and found the regression reduced to about 1.6%.
please be noted, according to our previous experience, the stress-ng is
kind of sensitive testsuite, so we normally wouldn't report <3% regression.
=========================================================================================
class/compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/testtime/ucode:
interrupt/gcc-9/performance/1HDD/x86_64-rhel-8.3/100%/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/lkp-ivb-2ep1/sigsegv/stress-ng/60s/0x42e
commit:
00a58a6af1c4 ("Reimplement RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE on top of ucounts")
8932738fc10c ("Reimplement RLIMIT_SIGPENDING on top of ucounts")
00a58a6af1c473c5 8932738fc10c4398521892adfe6
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
4.745e+08 -1.6% 4.669e+08 stress-ng.sigsegv.ops
7908964 -1.6% 7781343 stress-ng.sigsegv.ops_per_sec
Below is some data of results from your new branch and base.
b3ad8e1fa3fd8 ucounts: Set ucount_max to the largest positive value the type can hold 7783421.61 7794441.59 7775793.52 7773683.6 7760744.1 7757720.33
8932738fc10c4 Reimplement RLIMIT_SIGPENDING on top of ucounts 7755985.06 7780646.72 7783944.12 7809090.98 7798193.32 7760202.59
00a58a6af1c47 Reimplement RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE on top of ucounts 7940474.72 7912442.26 7879195.61 7869803.63 7912693.69 7939175.48
e75074781f173 selftests/resctrl: Change a few printed messages 7660254.5 7676124.45 7745330.79 7736754.88 7716834.93 7660143.13
87f1c20e2effd Documentation: kselftest: fix path to test module files 7729609.16 7726906.92 7760819.26
06bd03a57f8c2 selftests/resctrl: Fix MBA/MBM results reporting format 7692866.06 7730606.11 7681414.48
a38fd87484648 Linux 5.12-rc2 7724932.06
> > please be noted, sorry to say, due to various reasons, it will be a
> > big challenge for us to capture each version of a patch set.
> >
> > e.g. we didn't make out a similar performance regression for
> > v8/v9 version of this one..
> >
> > >
> > > So it seems we are finally pretty much at correct code in need
> > > of performance tuning.
> > >
> > > > I *think* this test may be testing "send so many signals that it
> > > > triggers the signal queue overflow case".
> > > >
> > > > And I *think* that the performance degradation may be due to lots of
> > > > unnecessary allocations, because ity looks like that commit changes
> > > > __sigqueue_alloc() to do
> > > >
> > > > struct sigqueue *q = kmem_cache_alloc(sigqueue_cachep, flags);
> > > >
> > > > *before* checking the signal limit, and then if the signal limit was
> > > > exceeded, it will just be free'd instead.
> > > >
> > > > The old code would check the signal count against RLIMIT_SIGPENDING
> > > > *first*, and if there were m ore pending signals then it wouldn't do
> > > > anything at all (including not incrementing that expensive atomic
> > > > count).
> > >
> > > This is an interesting test in a lot of ways as it is testing the
> > > synchronous signal delivery path caused by an exception. The test
> > > is either executing *ptr = 0 (where ptr points to a read-only page)
> > > or it executes an x86 instruction that is excessively long.
> > >
> > > I have found the code but I haven't figured out how it is being
> > > called yet. The core loop is just:
> > > for(;;) {
> > > sigaction(SIGSEGV, &action, NULL);
> > > sigaction(SIGILL, &action, NULL);
> > > sigaction(SIGBUS, &action, NULL);
> > >
> > > ret = sigsetjmp(jmp_env, 1);
> > > if (done())
> > > break;
> > > if (ret) {
> > > /* verify signal */
> > > } else {
> > > *ptr = 0;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Code like that fundamentally can not be multi-threaded. So the only way
> > > the sigpending limit is being hit is if there are more processes running
> > > that code simultaneously than the size of the limit.
> > >
> > > Further it looks like stress-ng pushes RLIMIT_SIGPENDING as high as it
> > > will go before the test starts.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, the old code was very careful to only do the "get_user()" for
> > > > the *first* signal it added to the queue, and do the "put_user()" for
> > > > when removing the last signal. Exactly because those atomics are very
> > > > expensive.
> > > >
> > > > The new code just does a lot of these atomics unconditionally.
> > >
> > > Yes. That seems a likely culprit.
> > >
> > > > I dunno. The profile data in there is a bit hard to read, but there's
> > > > a lot more cachee misses, and a *lot* of node crossers:
> > > >
> > > >> 5961544 +190.4% 17314361 perf-stat.i.cache-misses
> > > >> 22107466 +119.2% 48457656 perf-stat.i.cache-references
> > > >> 163292 ą 3% +4582.0% 7645410 perf-stat.i.node-load-misses
> > > >> 227388 ą 2% +3708.8% 8660824 perf-stat.i.node-loads
> > > >
> > > > and (probably as a result) average instruction costs have gone up enormously:
> > > >
> > > >> 3.47 +66.8% 5.79 perf-stat.overall.cpi
> > > >> 22849 -65.6% 7866 perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
> > > >
> > > > and it does seem to be at least partly about "put_ucounts()":
> > > >
> > > >> 0.00 +4.5 4.46 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.put_ucounts.__sigqueue_free.get_signal.arch_do_signal_or_restart.exit_to_user_mode_prepare
> > > >
> > > > and a lot of "get_ucounts()".
> > > >
> > > > But it may also be that the new "get sigpending" is just *so* much
> > > > more expensive than it used to be.
> > >
> > > That too is possible.
> > >
> > > That node-load-misses number does look like something is bouncing back
> > > and forth between the nodes a lot more. So I suspect stress-ng is
> > > running multiple copies of the sigsegv test in different processes at
> > > once.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That really suggests cache line ping pong from get_ucounts and
> > > incrementing sigpending.
> > >
> > > It surprises me that obtaining the cache lines exclusively is
> > > the dominant cost on this code path but obtaining two cache lines
> > > exclusively instead of one cache cache line exclusively is consistent
> > > with a causing the exception delivery to take nearly twice as long.
> > >
> > > For the optimization we only care about the leaf count so with a little
> > > care we can restore the optimization. So that is probably the thing
> > > to do here. The fewer changes to worry about the less likely to find
> > > surprises.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That said for this specific case there is a lot of potential room for
> > > improvement. As this is a per thread signal the code update sigpending
> > > in commit_cred and never worry about needing to pin the struct
> > > user_struct or struct ucounts. As this is a synchronous signal we could
> > > skip the sigpending increment, skip the signal queue entirely, and
> > > deliver the signal to user-space immediately. The removal of all cache
> > > ping pongs might make it worth it.
> > >
> > > There is also Thomas Gleixner's recent optimization to cache one
> > > sigqueue entry per task to give more predictable behavior. That
> > > would remove the cost of the allocation.
> > >
> > > Eric
> >
>
> --
> Rgrds, legion
>
