Re: [RFC bpf-next 13/16] libbpf: Add trampoline batch attach support

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:09:26PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:03 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding trampoline batch attach support so it's possible to use
> > batch mode to load tracing programs.
> >
> > Adding trampoline_attach_batch bool to struct bpf_object_open_opts.
> > When set to true the bpf_object__attach_skeleton will try to load
> > all tracing programs via batch mode.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Assuming we go with the current kernel API for batch-attach, why can't
> libbpf just detect kernel support for it and just use it always,
> without requiring users to opt into anything?

yea, it's rfc ;-) I wanted some simple usage of the
interface so it's obvious how it works

if we'll end up with some batch interface I agree
we should use it as you suggested

> 
> But I'm also confused a bit how this is supposed to be used with BPF
> skeleton. You use case described in a cover letter (bpftrace glob
> attach, right?) would have a single BPF program attached to many
> different functions. While here you are trying to collect different
> programs and attach each one to its respective kernel function. Do you
> expect users to have hundreds of BPF programs in their skeletons? If
> not, I don't really see why adding this complexity. What am I missing?

AFAIU when you use trampoline program you declare the attach point
at the load time, so you actually can't use same program for different
kernel functions - which would be great speed up actually, because
that's where the rest of the cycles in bpftrace is spent (in that cover
letter example) - load/verifier check of all those programs

it's different for kprobe where you hook single kprobe via multiple
kprobe perf events to different kernel function

> 
> Now it also seems weird to me for the kernel API to allow attaching
> many-to-many BPF programs-to-attach points. One BPF program-to-many
> attach points seems like a more sane and common requirement, no?

right, but that's the consequence of what I wrote above

jirka

> 
> 
> >  tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c      | 12 +++++++
> >  tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h      |  1 +
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |  5 ++-
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |  1 +
> >  5 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> [...]
>