+35
−21
Loading
perf/hw_breakpoint: Optimize list of per-task breakpoints
On a machine with 256 CPUs, running the recently added perf breakpoint
benchmark results in:
| $> perf bench -r 30 breakpoint thread -b 4 -p 64 -t 64
| # Running 'breakpoint/thread' benchmark:
| # Created/joined 30 threads with 4 breakpoints and 64 parallelism
| Total time: 236.418 [sec]
|
| 123134.794271 usecs/op
| 7880626.833333 usecs/op/cpu
The benchmark tests inherited breakpoint perf events across many
threads.
Looking at a perf profile, we can see that the majority of the time is
spent in various hw_breakpoint.c functions, which execute within the
'nr_bp_mutex' critical sections which then results in contention on that
mutex as well:
37.27% [kernel] [k] osq_lock
34.92% [kernel] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner
12.15% [kernel] [k] toggle_bp_slot
11.90% [kernel] [k] __reserve_bp_slot
The culprit here is task_bp_pinned(), which has a runtime complexity of
O(#tasks) due to storing all task breakpoints in the same list and
iterating through that list looking for a matching task. Clearly, this
does not scale to thousands of tasks.
Instead, make use of the "rhashtable" variant "rhltable" which stores
multiple items with the same key in a list. This results in average
runtime complexity of O(1) for task_bp_pinned().
With the optimization, the benchmark shows:
| $> perf bench -r 30 breakpoint thread -b 4 -p 64 -t 64
| # Running 'breakpoint/thread' benchmark:
| # Created/joined 30 threads with 4 breakpoints and 64 parallelism
| Total time: 0.208 [sec]
|
| 108.422396 usecs/op
| 6939.033333 usecs/op/cpu
On this particular setup that's a speedup of ~1135x.
While one option would be to make task_struct a breakpoint list node,
this would only further bloat task_struct for infrequently used data.
Furthermore, after all optimizations in this series, there's no evidence
it would result in better performance: later optimizations make the time
spent looking up entries in the hash table negligible (we'll reach the
theoretical ideal performance i.e. no constraints).
Signed-off-by: 
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Acked-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220829124719.675715-5-elver@google.com