[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210408164426.o5cfvv3ixowsto62@example.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:44:26 +0200
From: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, 0day robot <lkp@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, zhengjun.xing@...el.com,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 08ed4efad6: stress-ng.sigsegv.ops_per_sec -41.9% regression
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:22:40AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:32 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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 and right now I'm trying to rewrite this patch.
> 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.
Thanks for decrypting this! I spent some time to understand this report
and still wasn't sure I understood it.
--
Rgrds, legion
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
