From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: Tao Chen <chen.dylane@linux.dev>,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
namhyung@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
kan.liang@linux.intel.com, song@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
eddyz87@gmail.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/2] bpf: Hold the perf callchain entry until used completely
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 22:20:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <04002253-1edf-4957-a43e-bd6dcc465dcd@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <363717bf-499a-4e47-b2c9-8a6e4105282c@linux.dev>
On 11/5/25 9:12 PM, Tao Chen wrote:
> 在 2025/11/6 06:16, Yonghong Song 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/25 9:25 AM, Tao Chen wrote:
>>> As Alexei noted, get_perf_callchain() return values may be reused
>>> if a task is preempted after the BPF program enters migrate disable
>>> mode. The perf_callchain_entres has a small stack of entries, and
>>> we can reuse it as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. get the perf callchain entry
>>> 2. BPF use...
>>> 3. put the perf callchain entry
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tao Chen <chen.dylane@linux.dev>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 61
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
>>> index e28b35c7e0b..70d38249083 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
>>> @@ -188,13 +188,12 @@ static void
>>> stack_map_get_build_id_offset(struct bpf_stack_build_id *id_offs,
>>> }
>>> static struct perf_callchain_entry *
>>> -get_callchain_entry_for_task(struct task_struct *task, u32 max_depth)
>>> +get_callchain_entry_for_task(int *rctx, struct task_struct *task,
>>> u32 max_depth)
>>> {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE
>>> struct perf_callchain_entry *entry;
>>> - int rctx;
>>> - entry = get_callchain_entry(&rctx);
>>> + entry = get_callchain_entry(rctx);
>>> if (!entry)
>>> return NULL;
>>> @@ -216,8 +215,6 @@ get_callchain_entry_for_task(struct task_struct
>>> *task, u32 max_depth)
>>> to[i] = (u64)(from[i]);
>>> }
>>> - put_callchain_entry(rctx);
>>> -
>>> return entry;
>>> #else /* CONFIG_STACKTRACE */
>>> return NULL;
>>> @@ -297,6 +294,31 @@ static long __bpf_get_stackid(struct bpf_map *map,
>>> return id;
>>> }
>>> +static struct perf_callchain_entry *
>>> +bpf_get_perf_callchain(int *rctx, struct pt_regs *regs, bool
>>> kernel, bool user,
>>> + int max_stack, bool crosstask)
>>> +{
>>> + struct perf_callchain_entry_ctx ctx;
>>> + struct perf_callchain_entry *entry;
>>> +
>>> + entry = get_callchain_entry(rctx);
>>
>> I think this may not work. Let us say we have two bpf programs
>> both pinned to a particular cpu (migrate disabled but preempt enabled).
>> get_callchain_entry() calls get_recursion_context() to get the
>> buffer for a particulart level.
>>
>> static inline int get_recursion_context(u8 *recursion)
>> {
>> unsigned char rctx = interrupt_context_level();
>> if (recursion[rctx])
>> return -1;
>> recursion[rctx]++;
>> barrier();
>> return rctx;
>> }
>>
>> It is possible that both tasks (at process level) may
>> reach right before "recursion[rctx]++;".
>> In such cases, both tasks will be able to get
>> buffer and this is not right.
>>
>> To fix this, we either need to have preempt disable
>> in bpf side, or maybe we have some kind of atomic
>> operation (cmpxchg or similar things), or maybe
>> has a preempt disable between if statement and recursion[rctx]++,
>> so only one task can get buffer?
>>
>
> Thanks to your reminder, can we add preempt disable before and after
> get_callchain_entry, avoid affecting the original functions of perf.
Yes, we get two get_callchain_entry() call site:
bpf/stackmap.c: entry = get_callchain_entry(&rctx);
events/callchain.c: entry = get_callchain_entry(&rctx);
We need to have preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() around them.
Another choice maybe adds preempt_disable/enable() for
get_callchain_entry() and get_perf_callchain() in stackmap.c,
assuming these two function usage in other places are for
interrupts (softirq, hardirq and nmi) so they are okay.
But maybe the following is better?
diff --git a/kernel/events/internal.h b/kernel/events/internal.h
index d9cc57083091..0ccf94315954 100644
--- a/kernel/events/internal.h
+++ b/kernel/events/internal.h
@@ -214,12 +214,9 @@ static inline int get_recursion_context(u8 *recursion)
{
unsigned char rctx = interrupt_context_level();
- if (recursion[rctx])
+ if (cmpxchg(&recursion[rctx], 0, 1) != 0)
return -1;
- recursion[rctx]++;
- barrier();
-
return rctx;
}
>
> Regarding multiple task preemption: if the entry is not released via
> put_callchain_entry, it appears that perf's buffer does not support
> recording the second task, so it returns directly here.
>
> if (recursion[rctx])
> return -1;
>
>>
>>> + if (unlikely(!entry))
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + __init_perf_callchain_ctx(&ctx, entry, max_stack, false);
>>> + if (kernel)
>>> + __get_perf_callchain_kernel(&ctx, regs);
>>> + if (user && !crosstask)
>>> + __get_perf_callchain_user(&ctx, regs);
>>> +
>>> + return entry;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void bpf_put_callchain_entry(int rctx)
>>
>> we have bpf_get_perf_callchain(), maybe rename the above
>> to bpf_put_perf_callchain()?
>>
>
> Ack, thanks.
>
>>> +{
>>> + put_callchain_entry(rctx);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-06 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-28 16:25 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/2] Pass external callchain entry to get_perf_callchain Tao Chen
2025-10-28 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] perf: Refactor get_perf_callchain Tao Chen
2025-10-28 17:09 ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-10-30 2:36 ` Tao Chen
2025-11-05 20:45 ` Yonghong Song
2025-11-06 3:28 ` Tao Chen
2025-10-28 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/2] bpf: Hold the perf callchain entry until used completely Tao Chen
2025-11-05 22:16 ` Yonghong Song
2025-11-06 5:12 ` Tao Chen
2025-11-06 6:20 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2025-11-06 7:08 ` Tao Chen
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=04002253-1edf-4957-a43e-bd6dcc465dcd@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chen.dylane@linux.dev \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=song@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.