From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Instrumentation and RCU
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 13:56:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200317175614.GA13090@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200310014043.4dbagqbr2wsbuarm@ast-mbp>
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 06:40:45PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 02:37:40PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >
> > > But what's relevant is the tracer overhead which is e.g. inflicted
> > > with todays trace_hardirqs_off/on() implementation because that
> > > unconditionally uses the rcuidle variant with the scru/rcu_irq dance
> > > around every tracepoint.
> >
> > I think one of the big issues here is that most of the uses of
> > trace_hardirqs_off() are from sites which already have RCU watching,
> > so we are doing heavy-weight operations for nothing.
>
> I think kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c created too many problems for the
> kernel without providing tangible benefits. My understanding no one is using it
> in production.
Hi Alexei,
There are various people use the preempt/irq disable tracepoints for last 2
years at Google and ARM. There's also a BPF tool (in BCC) that uses those for
tracing critical sections. Also Daniel Bristot's entire Preempt-IRQ formal
verification stuff depends on it.
> It's a tool to understand how kernel works. And such debugging
> tool can and should be removed.
If we go by that line of reasoning, then function tracing also should be
removed from the kernel.
I am glad Thomas and Peter are working on it and looking forward to seeing
the patches,
thanks,
- Joel
> One of Thomas's patches mentioned that bpf can be invoked from hardirq and
> preempt tracers. This connection doesn't exist in a direct way, but
> theoretically it's possible. There is no practical use though and I would be
> happy to blacklist such bpf usage at a minimum.
>
> > We could use the approach proposed by Peterz's and Steven's patches to basically
> > do a lightweight "is_rcu_watching()" check for rcuidle tracepoint, and only enable
> > RCU for those cases. We could then simply go back on using regular RCU like so:
> >
> > #define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args, cond, rcuidle) \
> > do { \
> > struct tracepoint_func *it_func_ptr; \
> > void *it_func; \
> > void *__data; \
> > bool exit_rcu = false; \
> > \
> > if (!(cond)) \
> > return; \
> > \
> > if (rcuidle && !rcu_is_watching()) { \
> > rcu_irq_enter_irqson(); \
> > exit_rcu = true; \
> > } \
> > preempt_disable_notrace(); \
> > it_func_ptr = rcu_dereference_raw((tp)->funcs); \
> > if (it_func_ptr) { \
> > do { \
> > it_func = (it_func_ptr)->func; \
> > __data = (it_func_ptr)->data; \
> > ((void(*)(proto))(it_func))(args); \
> > } while ((++it_func_ptr)->func); \
> > } \
> > preempt_enable_notrace(); \
> > if (exit_rcu) \
> > rcu_irq_exit_irqson(); \
> > } while (0)
>
> I think it's a fine approach interim.
>
> Long term sounds like Paul is going to provide sleepable and low overhead
> rcu_read_lock_for_tracers() that will include bpf.
> My understanding that this new rcu flavor won't have "idle" issues,
> so rcu_is_watching() checks will not be necessary.
> And if we remove trace_preemptirq.c the only thing left will be Thomas's points
> 1 (low level entry) and 2 (breakpoints) that can be addressed without
> creating fancy .text annotations and teach objtool about it.
>
> In the mean time I've benchmarked srcu for sleepable bpf and it's quite heavy.
> srcu_read_lock+unlock roughly adds 10x execution cost to trivial bpf prog.
> I'm proceeding with it anyway, but really hoping that
> rcu_read_lock_for_tracers() will materialize soon.
>
> In general I'm sceptical that .text annotations will work. Let's say all of
> idle is a red zone. But a ton of normal functions are called when idle. So
> objtool will go and mark them as red zone too. This way large percent of the
> kernel will be off limits for tracers. Which is imo not a good trade off. I
> think addressing 1 and 2 with explicit notrace/nokprobe annotations will cover
> all practical cases where people can shot themselves in a foot with a tracer. I
> realize that there will be forever whack-a-mole game and these annotations will
> never reach 100%. I think it's a fine trade off. Security is never 100% either.
> Tracing is never going to be 100% safe too.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-17 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87mu8p797b.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
[not found] ` <1403546357.21810.1583779060302.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
2020-03-10 1:40 ` Instrumentation and RCU Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-10 8:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 16:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-17 17:56 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200317175614.GA13090@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).