From: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
"john fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@redhat.com>,
Daniel Xu <dlxu@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs. user_prog
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 23:50:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5D24F0EF-6592-402C-BFF8-34119FFF7A2C@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200805225015.kd4tx6w3wh67oara@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
> On Aug 5, 2020, at 3:50 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 06:56:26PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 04:47:30AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Being able to trigger BPF program on a different CPU could enable many
>>>> use cases and optimizations. The use case I am looking at is to access
>>>> perf_event and percpu maps on the target CPU. For example:
>>>> 0. trigger the program
>>>> 1. read perf_event on cpu x;
>>>> 2. (optional) check which process is running on cpu x;
>>>> 3. add perf_event value to percpu map(s) on cpu x.
>>>
>>> If the whole thing is about doing the above then I don't understand why new
>>> prog type is needed.
>>
>> I was under the (probably wrong) impression that adding prog type is not
>> that big a deal.
>
> Not a big deal when it's necessary.
>
>>> Can prog_test_run support existing BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE?
>>
>> I haven't looked into all the details, but I bet this is possible.
>>
>>> "enable many use cases" sounds vague. I don't think folks reading
>>> the patches can guess those "use cases".
>>> "Testing existing kprobe bpf progs" would sound more convincing to me.
>>> If the test_run framework can be extended to trigger kprobe with correct pt_regs.
>>> As part of it test_run would trigger on a given cpu with $ip pointing
>>> to some test fuction in test_run.c. For local test_run the stack trace
>>> would include bpf syscall chain. For IPI the stack trace would include
>>> the corresponding kernel pieces where top is our special test function.
>>> Sort of like pseudo kprobe where there is no actual kprobe logic,
>>> since kprobe prog doesn't care about mechanism. It needs correct
>>> pt_regs only as input context.
>>> The kprobe prog output (return value) has special meaning though,
>>> so may be kprobe prog type is not a good fit.
>>> Something like fentry/fexit may be better, since verifier check_return_code()
>>> enforces 'return 0'. So their return value is effectively "void".
>>> Then prog_test_run would need to gain an ability to trigger
>>> fentry/fexit prog on a given cpu.
>>
>> Maybe we add a new attach type for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, which is in
>> parallel with BPF_TRACE_FENTRY and BPF_TRACE_EXIT? Say BPF_TRACE_USER?
>> (Just realized I like this name :-D, it matches USDT...). Then we can
>> enable test_run for most (if not all) tracing programs, including
>> fentry/fexit.
>
> Why new hook? Why prog_test_run cmd cannot be made to work
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING when it's loaded as BPF_TRACE_FENTRY and attach_btf_id
> points to special test function?
> The test_run cmd will trigger execution of that special function.
I am not sure I am following 100%. IIUC, the special test function is a
kernel function, and we attach fentry program to it. When multiple fentry
programs attach to the function, these programs will need proper filter
logic.
Alternatively, if test_run just prepare the ctx and call BPF_PROG_RUN(),
like in bpf_test_run(), we don't need the special test function.
So I do think the new attach type requires new hook. It is just like
BPF_TRACE_FENTRY without valid attach_btf_id. Of course, we can reserve
a test function and use it for attach_btf_id. If test_run just calls
BPF_PROG_RUN(), we will probably never touch the test function.
IMO, we are choosing from two options.
1. FENTRY on special function. User will specify attach_btf_id on the
special function.
2. new attach type (BPF_TRACE_USER), that do not require attach_btf_id;
and there is no need for a special function.
I personally think #2 is cleaner API. But I have no objection if #1 is
better in other means.
Thanks,
Song
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-05 23:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-01 8:47 [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] introduce BPF_PROG_TYPE_USER Song Liu
2020-08-01 8:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: " Song Liu
2020-08-01 13:58 ` kernel test robot
2020-08-01 15:21 ` kernel test robot
2020-08-06 18:18 ` kernel test robot
2020-08-06 18:18 ` [RFC PATCH] bpf: user_verifier_ops can be static kernel test robot
2020-08-01 8:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] libbpf: support BPF_PROG_TYPE_USER programs Song Liu
2020-08-03 1:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-03 4:21 ` Song Liu
2020-08-03 5:05 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-04 1:18 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 1:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 3:59 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 5:32 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 6:26 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 6:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 7:23 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 17:44 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-01 8:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: add selftest for BPF_PROG_TYPE_USER Song Liu
2020-08-03 1:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-03 4:33 ` Song Liu
2020-08-03 5:07 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-01 8:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: move two functions to test_progs.c Song Liu
2020-08-03 1:46 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-03 4:34 ` Song Liu
2020-08-01 8:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs. user_prog Song Liu
2020-08-03 1:51 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-03 4:47 ` Song Liu
2020-08-03 5:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-04 20:54 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 1:52 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 4:47 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 5:47 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 7:01 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 17:39 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 18:41 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 17:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-08-05 17:27 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 17:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-08-05 17:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-08-05 18:56 ` Song Liu
2020-08-05 22:50 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-08-05 23:50 ` Song Liu [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=5D24F0EF-6592-402C-BFF8-34119FFF7A2C@fb.com \
--to=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dlxu@fb.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).