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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 310F0C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32E22173E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="rbGn8k5M" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727409AbfLLAu3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:50:29 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f176.google.com ([209.85.222.176]:32860 "EHLO mail-qk1-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726673AbfLLAu3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:50:29 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f176.google.com with SMTP id d71so243899qkc.0; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:50:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tXuwMVtaxepcay0PYJWq+GqgE5KLquZiW+7vQE0vQA4=; b=rbGn8k5MYTN7J6hjcWeocvPwcNsbyl8SKIfLy38mgIbRTwio+QYykYDZX1FApV8M3z UvCmj+grH9/NY4/qGxg3GtTmHGRQ0ddKNhK4Eg6V2LsgoZyrinI27RC/5AgdeBEVwWUx cpiAT76jk4Reww6rNAt9ZhXX9nUBF15e1L5tnp1MmMSEQOkTZ1noGpA8dLYXz8KpX7MD 7qV3eiT7WzzRRRfCUHYQEFUE4cczsvF2AuL00BLFZxqrUrey3YLHvYDjsMQvtYPKzBkp 5blCCC1nD14XlJ0LIVcI65xdJyP82cgMdFel10iORKG1zy84TnUZwG6e2gOL074PXAc5 675A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tXuwMVtaxepcay0PYJWq+GqgE5KLquZiW+7vQE0vQA4=; b=iKgfWTKsF+BjhGUUket6n5vZdv56q1NXtmcfXAUzxtXLvkKVBBufFiG9+wDgLOblV7 lK6P3Je2/49vOBzJz6IGxudMnHuMVVtr15/PStA4MNpRJrwEOLfkHay+bLYVoxnR/aKj ZLWPGWPdG6TWn+JJcxlnr6Dxs1XYABzFMfZx81uHYEZ7of/AOx4vDktfwmtGVmDO5ken eGmkTFzdw4jfI/Dc6su242StTAqXXKS1sJ0E1W69t5u8uLiX21L0k84z7DiQe3PB+um5 JRHBBzpurbSyaxcaaxyYcMDnhAWVVkzrEUwoYLCg4lV1kPE9B6a4xWOHuQCVilnwY/oX qtZw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWPfK7koseDiOeIqLbM6kYZfS0319f6ICLD5RTGakOQpsIRu5vs OcYhucOEQyfB503IVzeLFCbNFhDDxUsNPw/Xqeg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw0bNkVZLwjeQY7WaEoaJseRFeoRPv1Q0E1K9yHlMYnO301kq7J1L4HvV9sMzY2gim2NWxIZQQEavYgjrKDUmc= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e809:: with SMTP id a9mr5694648qkg.92.1576111827406; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:50:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191210100536.7a57d5e1@cakuba.netronome.com> <20191210214407.GA3105713@mini-arch> <20191210225900.GB3105713@mini-arch> <20191211172432.GC3105713@mini-arch> <20191211191518.GD3105713@mini-arch> <20191211200924.GE3105713@mini-arch> In-Reply-To: <20191211200924.GE3105713@mini-arch> From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:50:16 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/15] bpftool: add skeleton codegen command To: Stanislav Fomichev Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Andrii Nakryiko , LKML , bpf , Networking , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Kernel Team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:09 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 12/11, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:15 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > > > On 12/11, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:24 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 12/10, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/10, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:44 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/10, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:11:31 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 5:57 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:14:34 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* used by libbpf's skeleton API */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_object_skeleton *skeleton; > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* bpf_object for libbpf APIs */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_object *obj; > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* for every defined map in BPF object: */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_map *; > > > > > > > > > > > > > } maps; > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* for every program in BPF object: */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_program *; > > > > > > > > > > > > > } progs; > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* for every program in BPF object: */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_link *; > > > > > > > > > > > > > } links; > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* for every present global data section: */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct __ { > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* memory layout of corresponding data section, > > > > > > > > > > > > > * with every defined variable represented as a struct field > > > > > > > > > > > > > * with exactly the same type, but without const/volatile > > > > > > > > > > > > > * modifiers, e.g.: > > > > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > int *my_var_1; > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > } *; > > > > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I understand how this is useful, but perhaps the problem here > > > > > > > > > > > > is that we're using C for everything, and simple programs for which > > > > > > > > > > > > loading the ELF is majority of the code would be better of being > > > > > > > > > > > > written in a dynamic language like python? Would it perhaps be a > > > > > > > > > > > > better idea to work on some high-level language bindings than spend > > > > > > > > > > > > time writing code gens and working around limitations of C? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of this work prevents Python bindings and other improvements, is > > > > > > > > > > > it? Patches, as always, are greatly appreciated ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This "do it yourself" shit is not really funny :/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll stop providing feedback on BPF patches if you guy keep saying > > > > > > > > > > that :/ Maybe that's what you want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This skeleton stuff is not just to save code, but in general to > > > > > > > > > > > simplify and streamline working with BPF program from userspace side. > > > > > > > > > > > Fortunately or not, but there are a lot of real-world applications > > > > > > > > > > > written in C and C++ that could benefit from this, so this is still > > > > > > > > > > > immensely useful. selftests/bpf themselves benefit a lot from this > > > > > > > > > > > work, see few of the last patches in this series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe those applications are written in C and C++ _because_ there > > > > > > > > > > are no bindings for high level languages. I just wish BPF programming > > > > > > > > > > was less weird and adding some funky codegen is not getting us closer > > > > > > > > > > to that goal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my experience code gen is nothing more than a hack to work around > > > > > > > > > > bad APIs, but experiences differ so that's not a solid argument. > > > > > > > > > *nod* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a nice set of C++ wrappers around libbpf internally, so we can do > > > > > > > > > something like BpfMap and get a much better interface > > > > > > > > > with type checking. Maybe we should focus on higher level languages instead? > > > > > > > > > We are open to open-sourcing our C++ bits if you want to collaborate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Python/C++ bindings and API wrappers are an orthogonal concerns here. > > > > > > > > I personally think it would be great to have both Python and C++ > > > > > > > > specific API that uses libbpf under the cover. The only debatable > > > > > > > > thing is the logistics: where the source code lives, how it's kept in > > > > > > > > sync with libbpf, how we avoid crippling libbpf itself because > > > > > > > > something is hard or inconvenient to adapt w/ Python, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > The problem I'm trying to solve here is not really C-specific. I don't > > > > > > > > think you can solve it without code generation for C++. How do you > > > > > > > > "generate" BPF program-specific layout of .data, .bss, .rodata, etc > > > > > > > > data sections in such a way, where it's type safe (to the degree that > > > > > > > > language allows that, of course) and is not "stringly-based" API? This > > > > > > > > skeleton stuff provides a natural, convenient and type-safe way to > > > > > > > > work with global data from userspace pretty much at the same level of > > > > > > > > performance and convenience, as from BPF side. How can you achieve > > > > > > > > that w/ C++ without code generation? As for Python, sure you can do > > > > > > > > dynamic lookups based on just the name of property/method, but amount > > > > > > > > of overheads is not acceptable for all applications (and Python itself > > > > > > > > is not acceptable for those applications). In addition to that, C is > > > > > > > > the best way for other less popular languages (e.g., Rust) to leverage > > > > > > > > libbpf without investing lots of effort in re-implementing libbpf in > > > > > > > > Rust. > > > > > > > I'd say that a libbpf API similar to dlopen/dlsym is a more > > > > > > > straightforward thing to do. Have a way to "open" a section and > > > > > > > a way to find a symbol in it. Yes, it's a string-based API, > > > > > > > but there is nothing wrong with it. IMO, this is easier to > > > > > > > use/understand and I suppose Python/C++ wrappers are trivial. > > > > > > > > > > > > Without digging through libbpf source code (or actually, look at code, > > > > > > but don't run any test program), what's the name of the map > > > > > > corresponding to .bss section, if object file is > > > > > > some_bpf_object_file.o? If you got it right (congrats, btw, it took me > > > > > > multiple attempts to memorize the pattern), how much time did you > > > > > > spend looking it up? Now compare it to `skel->maps.bss`. Further, if > > > > > > you use anonymous structs for your global vars, good luck maintaining > > > > > > two copies of that: one for BPF side and one for userspace. > > > > > As your average author of BPF programs I don't really care > > > > > which section my symbol ends up into. Just give me an api > > > > > to mmap all "global" sections (or a call per section which does all the > > > > > naming magic inside) and lookup symbol by name; I can cast it to a proper > > > > > type and set it. > > > > > > > > I'd like to not have to know about bss/rodata/data as well, but that's > > > > how things are done for global variables. In skeleton we can try to > > > > make an illusion like they are part of one big datasection/struct, but > > > > that seems like a bit too much magic at this point. But then again, > > > > one of the reasons I want this as an experimental feature, so that we > > > > can actually judge from real experience how inconvenient some things > > > > are, and not just based on "I think it would be ...". > > > > > > > > re: "Just give me ...". Following the spirit of "C is hard" from your > > > > previous arguments, you already have that API: mmap() syscall. C > > > > programmers have to be able to figure out the rest ;) But on the > > > > serious note, this auto-generated code in skeleton actually addresses > > > > all concerns (and more) that you mentioned: mmaping, knowing offsets, > > > > knowing names and types, etc. And it doesn't preclude adding more > > > > "conventional" additional APIs to do everything more dynamically, > > > > based on string names. > > > We have different understanding of what's difficult :-) > > > > Well, clearly... See below. > > > > > > > > To me, doing transparent data/rodata/bss mmap in bpf_object__load and then > > > adding a single libbpf api call to lookup symbol by string name is simple > > > (both from user perspective and from libbpf code complexity). Because in > > > order to use the codegen I need to teach our build system to spit it > > > out (which means I need to add bpftool to it and keep it > > > updated/etc/etc). You can use it as an example of "real experience how > > > inconvenient some things are". > > > > Yes, you need to integrate bpftool in your build process. Which is > > exactly what I'm doing internally for Facebook as well. But it's a > > mostly one-time cost, which benefits lots of users who have much > > better time with these changes, as opposed to make things simpler for > > us, libbpf developers, at the expense of more convoluted user > > experience for end users. I certainly prefer more complicated > > libbpf/bpftool code, if the resulting user experience is simpler for > > BPF application developers, no doubt about it. > I'm in the process of going through this with pahole to get proper BTF. > I don't think I'm willing yet (without a good reason) to go through > this process again :-D (I saw that you've converted a bunch of tests > to it which means I might not be able to run them). A lot of new functionality is depending on BTF for a really good reason (check Alexei's fentry/fexit/btf_tp stuff, allowing for safe direct memory reads and extremely low overhead kretprobes). More stuff is to come and is going to require in-kernel BTF, so even if it's painful right now, it's worth it. Think long term and keep perspective in mind. > > I just hope bpftool codegen doesn't become a requirement for > any new useful feature; same happened to BTF, which was optional > for a while and now I can't run a single selftest without it. > I can totally understand the BTF requirement though, but I don't buy the > "codegen makes user experience simple for bpf application developers", > sorry (I guess, at this point, it's all about preference). Bpftool is going to be a requirement for selftests. And it's a good thing because it allows us to continuously test not just libbpf, kernel, but now also related tooling. I haven't converted all of the selftests to skeleton, but given enough time I'd do that, just for the cleaner and shorter plumbing code it gives. > > > > > > RE anonymous structs: maybe don't use them if you want to share the data > > > > > between bpf and userspace? > > > > > > > > Alright. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said there is anything wrong with current straightforward > > > > > > libbpf API, but I also never said it's the easiest and most > > > > > > user-friendly way to work with BPF either. So we'll have both > > > > > > code-generated interface and existing API. Furthermore, they are > > > > > > interoperable (you can pass skel->maps.whatever to any of the existing > > > > > > libbpf APIs, same for progs, links, obj itself). But there isn't much > > > > > > that can beat performance and usability of code-generated .data, .bss, > > > > > > .rodata (and now .extern) layout. > > > > > I haven't looked closely enough, but is there a libbpf api to get > > > > > an offset of a variable? Suppose I have the following in bpf.c: > > > > > > > > > > int a; > > > > > int b; > > > > > > > > > > Can I get an offset of 'b' in the .bss without manually parsing BTF? > > > > > > > > No there isn't right now. There isn't even an API to know that there > > > > is such a variable called "b". Except for this skeleton, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBH, I don't buy the performance argument for these global maps. > > > > > When you did the mmap patchset for the array, you said it yourself > > > > > that it's about convenience and not performance. > > > > > > > > Yes, it's first and foremost about convenience, addressing exactly the > > > > problems you mentioned above. But performance is critical for some use > > > > cases, and nothing can beat memory-mapped view of BPF map for those. > > > > Think about the case of frequently polling (or even atomically > > > > exchanging) some stats from userspace, as one possible example. E.g., > > > > like some map statistics (number of filled elements, p50 of whatever > > > > of those elements, etc). I'm not sure what's there to buy: doing > > > > syscall to get **entire** global data map contents vs just fetching > > > > single integer from memory-mapped region, guess which one is cheaper? > > > My understanding was that when you were talking about performance, you > > > were talking about doing symbol offset lookup at runtime vs having a > > > generated struct with fixed offsets; not about mmap vs old api with copy > > > (this debate is settled since your patches are accepted). > > > > Oh, I see. No, I didn't intend to claim that performance of looking up > > variable by name in BTF is a big performance concern. Settled then :) > > > > > > > > But to your original reply: you do understand that if you have multiple > > > threads that write to this global data you have a bigger problem, right? > > > > Not necessarily. BPF has atomic increment instruction, doesn't it? And > > can't we still do atomic swap from user-space (it's just a memory, > > after all), right? I haven't tried, tbh, but don't see why it wouldn't > > work. > Atomics are even worse because you get all these nice cache bouncing effects. > That's why I didn't understand initialy the argument about performance. Depends on problems you are trying to solve. I bet it's still cheaper than doing map updates under lock, don't you think?