While optimizing task_bp_pinned()'s runtime complexity to O(1) on
average helps reduce time spent in the critical section, we still suffer
due to serializing everything via 'nr_bp_mutex'. Indeed, a profile shows
that now contention is the biggest issue:

    95.93%  [kernel]       [k] osq_lock
     0.70%  [kernel]       [k] mutex_spin_on_owner
     0.22%  [kernel]       [k] smp_cfm_core_cond
     0.18%  [kernel]       [k] task_bp_pinned
     0.18%  [kernel]       [k] rhashtable_jhash2
     0.15%  [kernel]       [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath

when running the breakpoint benchmark with (system with 256 CPUs):

 | $> 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: 0.207 [sec]
 |
 |      108.267188 usecs/op
 |     6929.100000 usecs/op/cpu

The main concern for synchronizing the breakpoint constraints data is
that a consistent snapshot of the per-CPU and per-task data is observed.

The access pattern is as follows:

 1. If the target is a task: the task's pinned breakpoints are counted,
    checked for space, and then appended to; only bp_cpuinfo::cpu_pinned
    is used to check for conflicts with CPU-only breakpoints;
    bp_cpuinfo::tsk_pinned are incremented/decremented, but otherwise
    unused.

 2. If the target is a CPU: bp_cpuinfo::cpu_pinned are counted, along
    with bp_cpuinfo::tsk_pinned; after a successful check, cpu_pinned is
    incremented. No per-task breakpoints are checked.

Since rhltable safely synchronizes insertions/deletions, we can allow
concurrency as follows:

 1. If the target is a task: independent tasks may update and check the
    constraints concurrently, but same-task target calls need to be
    serialized; since bp_cpuinfo::tsk_pinned is only updated, but not
    checked, these modifications can happen concurrently by switching
    tsk_pinned to atomic_t.

 2. If the target is a CPU: access to the per-CPU constraints needs to
    be serialized with other CPU-target and task-target callers (to
    stabilize the bp_cpuinfo::tsk_pinned snapshot).

We can allow the above concurrency by introducing a per-CPU constraints
data reader-writer lock (bp_cpuinfo_sem), and per-task mutexes (reuses
task_struct::perf_event_mutex):

  1. If the target is a task: acquires perf_event_mutex, and acquires
     bp_cpuinfo_sem as a reader. The choice of percpu-rwsem minimizes
     contention in the presence of many read-lock but few write-lock
     acquisitions: we assume many orders of magnitude more task target
     breakpoints creations/destructions than CPU target breakpoints.

  2. If the target is a CPU: acquires bp_cpuinfo_sem as a writer.

With these changes, contention with thousands of tasks is reduced to the
point where waiting on locking no longer dominates the profile:

 | $> 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: 0.077 [sec]
 |
 |       40.201563 usecs/op
 |     2572.900000 usecs/op/cpu

    21.54%  [kernel]       [k] task_bp_pinned
    20.18%  [kernel]       [k] rhashtable_jhash2
     6.81%  [kernel]       [k] toggle_bp_slot
     5.47%  [kernel]       [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath
     3.75%  [kernel]       [k] smp_cfm_core_cond
     3.48%  [kernel]       [k] bcmp

On this particular setup that's a speedup of 2.7x.

We're also getting closer to the theoretical ideal performance through
optimizations in hw_breakpoint.c -- constraints accounting disabled:

 | 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: 0.067 [sec]
 |
 |       35.286458 usecs/op
 |     2258.333333 usecs/op/cpu

Which means the current implementation is ~12% slower than the
theoretical ideal.

For reference, performance without any breakpoints:

 | $> bench -r 30 breakpoint thread -b 0 -p 64 -t 64
 | # Running 'breakpoint/thread' benchmark:
 | # Created/joined 30 threads with 0 breakpoints and 64 parallelism
 |      Total time: 0.060 [sec]
 |
 |       31.365625 usecs/op
 |     2007.400000 usecs/op/cpu

On a system with 256 CPUs, the theoretical ideal is only ~12% slower
than no breakpoints at all; the current implementation is ~28% slower.
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/20220829124719.675715-12-elver@google.com