On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 7:38 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:29 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It would be really good if Adrian could run the "compiling workload" on > > > his big system and post the statistics here. > > > > > > For example: > > > a) v6.11-rc1 + KASAN. > > > b) v6.11-rc1 + KASAN + patch. > > > > Sure, please see the statistics below. > > > > Test Result (based on 6.11-rc1) > > =============================== > > > > 1. Profile purge_vmap_node() > > > > A. Command: trace-cmd record -p function_graph -l purge_vmap_node make -j $(nproc) > > > > B. Average execution time of purge_vmap_node(): > > > > no patch (us) patched (us) saved > > ------------- ------------ ----- > > 147885.02 3692.51 97% > > > > C. Total execution time of purge_vmap_node(): > > > > no patch (us) patched (us) saved > > ------------- ------------ ----- > > 194173036 5114138 97% > > > > [ftrace log] Without patch: https://gist.github.com/AdrianHuang/a5bec861f67434e1024bbf43cea85959 > > [ftrace log] With patch: https://gist.github.com/AdrianHuang/a200215955ee377288377425dbaa04e3 > > > > 2. Use `time` utility to measure execution time > > > > A. Command: make clean && time make -j $(nproc) > > > > B. The following result is the average kernel execution time of five-time > > measurements. ('sys' field of `time` output): > > > > no patch (seconds) patched (seconds) saved > > ------------------ ---------------- ----- > > 36932.904 31403.478 15% > > > > [`time` log] Without patch: https://gist.github.com/AdrianHuang/987b20fd0bd2bb616b3524aa6ee43112 > > [`time` log] With patch: https://gist.github.com/AdrianHuang/da2ea4e6aa0b4dcc207b4e40b202f694 > > > I meant another statistics. As noted here https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ZogS_04dP5LlRlXN@pc636/T/#m5d57f11d9f69aef5313f4efbe25415b3bae4c818 > i came to conclusion that below place and lock: > > <snip> > static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead) > { > bool autoreap; > struct task_struct *p, *n; > LIST_HEAD(dead); > > write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > ... > <snip> > > keeps IRQs disabled, so it means that the purge_vmap_node() does the progress > but it can be slow. > > CPU_1: > disables IRQs > trying to grab the tasklist_lock > > CPU_2: > Sends an IPI to CPU_1 > waits until the specified callback is executed on CPU_1 > > Since CPU_1 has disabled IRQs, serving an IPI and completion of callback > takes time until CPU_1 enables IRQs back. > > Could you please post lock statistics for kernel compiling use case? > KASAN + patch is enough, IMO. This just to double check whether a > tasklist_lock is a problem or not. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Two experiments are shown as follows. I saw you think KASAN + patch is enough. But, in case you need another one. ;-) a) v6.11-rc1 + KASAN The result is different from yours, so I ran two tests (make sure the soft lockup warning was triggered). Test #1: waittime-max = 5.4ms <snip> ... class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ... tasklist_lock-W: 118762 120090 0.44 5443.22 24807413.37 206.57 429757 569051 2.27 3222.00 69914505.87 122.86 tasklist_lock-R: 108262 108300 0.41 5381.34 23613372.10 218.04 489132 541541 0.20 5543.40 10095470.68 18.64 --------------- tasklist_lock 44594 [<0000000099d3ea35>] exit_notify+0x82/0x900 tasklist_lock 32041 [<0000000058f753d8>] release_task+0x104/0x3f0 tasklist_lock 99240 [<000000008524ff80>] __do_wait+0xd8/0x710 tasklist_lock 43435 [<00000000f6e82dcf>] copy_process+0x2a46/0x50f0 --------------- tasklist_lock 98334 [<0000000099d3ea35>] exit_notify+0x82/0x900 tasklist_lock 82649 [<0000000058f753d8>] release_task+0x104/0x3f0 tasklist_lock 2 [<00000000da5a7972>] mm_update_next_owner+0xc0/0x430 tasklist_lock 26708 [<00000000f6e82dcf>] copy_process+0x2a46/0x50f0 ... <snip> Test #2:waittime-max = 5.7ms <snip> ... class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ... tasklist_lock-W: 121742 123167 0.43 5713.02 25252257.61 205.02 432111 569762 2.25 3083.08 70711022.74 124.11 tasklist_lock-R: 111479 111523 0.39 5050.50 24557264.88 220.20 491404 542221 0.20 5611.81 10007782.09 18.46 --------------- tasklist_lock 102317 [<000000008524ff80>] __do_wait+0xd8/0x710 tasklist_lock 44606 [<00000000f6e82dcf>] copy_process+0x2a46/0x50f0 tasklist_lock 45584 [<0000000099d3ea35>] exit_notify+0x82/0x900 tasklist_lock 32969 [<0000000058f753d8>] release_task+0x104/0x3f0 --------------- tasklist_lock 100498 [<0000000099d3ea35>] exit_notify+0x82/0x900 tasklist_lock 27401 [<00000000f6e82dcf>] copy_process+0x2a46/0x50f0 tasklist_lock 85473 [<0000000058f753d8>] release_task+0x104/0x3f0 tasklist_lock 650 [<000000004d0b9f6b>] tty_open_proc_set_tty+0x23/0x210 ... <snip> b) v6.11-rc1 + KASAN + patch: waittime-max = 5.7ms <snip> ... class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ... tasklist_lock-W: 108876 110087 0.33 5688.64 18622460.43 169.16 426740 568715 1.94 2930.76 62560515.48 110.00 tasklist_lock-R: 99864 99909 0.43 5868.69 17849478.20 178.66 487654 541328 0.20 5709.98 9207504.90 17.01 --------------- tasklist_lock 91655 [<00000000a622e532>] __do_wait+0xd8/0x710 tasklist_lock 41100 [<00000000ccf53925>] exit_notify+0x82/0x900 tasklist_lock 8254 [<00000000093ccded>] tty_open_proc_set_tty+0x23/0x210 tasklist_lock 39542 [<00000000a0e6bf4d>] copy_process+0x2a46/0x50f0 --------------- tasklist_lock 90525 [<00000000ccf53925>] exit_notify+0x82/0x900 tasklist_lock 76934 [<00000000cb7ca00c>] release_task+0x104/0x3f0 tasklist_lock 23723 [<00000000a0e6bf4d>] copy_process+0x2a46/0x50f0 tasklist_lock 18223 [<00000000a622e532>] __do_wait+0xd8/0x710 ... <snip>
