From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D791C433DF for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE8320720 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:07:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728186AbgFSAHT (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:07:19 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:57062 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726001AbgFSAHS (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:07:18 -0400 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jm4Yr-0005eM-GX; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:07:13 -0600 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jm4Ym-0006Uh-Qy; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:07:13 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Junxiao Bi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , Srinivas Eeda , "joe.jin\@oracle.com" References: <54091fc0-ca46-2186-97a8-d1f3c4f3877b@oracle.com> <20200618233958.GV8681@bombadil.infradead.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:02:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20200618233958.GV8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (Matthew Wilcox's message of "Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:39:58 -0700") Message-ID: <877dw3apn8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1jm4Ym-0006Uh-Qy;;;mid=<877dw3apn8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19NVkE1QwlpS7bOnHbUSF8lVHt7TQQejhQ= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: severe proc dentry lock contention X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox writes: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 03:17:33PM -0700, Junxiao Bi wrote: >> When debugging some performance issue, i found that thousands of threads >> exit around same time could cause a severe spin lock contention on proc >> dentry "/proc/$parent_process_pid/task/", that's because threads needs to >> clean up their pid file from that dir when exit. Check the following >> standalone test case that simulated the case and perf top result on v5.7 >> kernel. Any idea on how to fix this? > > Thanks, Junxiao. > > We've looked at a few different ways of fixing this problem. > > Even though the contention is within the dcache, it seems like a usecase > that the dcache shouldn't be optimised for -- generally we do not have > hundreds of CPUs removing dentries from a single directory in parallel. > > We could fix this within procfs. We don't have a great patch yet, but > the current approach we're looking at allows only one thread at a time > to call dput() on any /proc/*/task directory. > > We could also look at fixing this within the scheduler. Only allowing > one CPU to run the threads of an exiting process would fix this particular > problem, but might have other consequences. > > I was hoping that 7bc3e6e55acf would fix this, but that patch is in 5.7, > so that hope is ruled out. Does anyone know if problem new in v5.7? I am wondering if I introduced this problem when I refactored the code or if I simply churned the code but the issue remains effectively the same. Can you try only flushing entries when the last thread of the process is reaped? I think in practice we would want to be a little more sophisticated but it is a good test case to see if it solves the issue. diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c index cebae77a9664..d56e4eb60bdd 100644 --- a/kernel/exit.c +++ b/kernel/exit.c @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ void put_task_struct_rcu_user(struct task_struct *task) void release_task(struct task_struct *p) { struct task_struct *leader; - struct pid *thread_pid; + struct pid *thread_pid = NULL; int zap_leader; repeat: /* don't need to get the RCU readlock here - the process is dead and @@ -165,7 +165,8 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p) write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); ptrace_release_task(p); - thread_pid = get_pid(p->thread_pid); + if (p == p->group_leader) + thread_pid = get_pid(p->thread_pid); __exit_signal(p); /* @@ -188,8 +189,10 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p) } write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); - proc_flush_pid(thread_pid); - put_pid(thread_pid); + if (thread_pid) { + proc_flush_pid(thread_pid); + put_pid(thread_pid); + } release_thread(p); put_task_struct_rcu_user(p);