From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
Cc: Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/4] perf/bpf: Call bpf handler directly, not through overflow machinery
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:31:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZhYWPGX0RzamxOHx@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240214173950.18570-2-khuey@kylehuey.com>
* Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com> wrote:
> To ultimately allow bpf programs attached to perf events to completely
> suppress all of the effects of a perf event overflow (rather than just the
> sample output, as they do today), call bpf_overflow_handler() from
> __perf_event_overflow() directly rather than modifying struct perf_event's
> overflow_handler. Return the bpf program's return value from
> bpf_overflow_handler() so that __perf_event_overflow() knows how to
> proceed. Remove the now unnecessary orig_overflow_handler from struct
> perf_event.
>
> This patch is solely a refactoring and results in no behavior change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>
> Suggested-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/perf_event.h | 6 +-----
> kernel/events/core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> index d2a15c0c6f8a..c7f54fd74d89 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -810,7 +810,6 @@ struct perf_event {
> perf_overflow_handler_t overflow_handler;
> void *overflow_handler_context;
> #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> - perf_overflow_handler_t orig_overflow_handler;
> struct bpf_prog *prog;
> u64 bpf_cookie;
> #endif
Could we reduce the #ifdeffery please?
On distros CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL is almost always enabled, so it's not like
this truly saves anything on real systems.
I'd suggest making the perf_event::prog and perf_event::bpf_cookie fields
unconditional.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> +static int bpf_overflow_handler(struct perf_event *event,
> + struct perf_sample_data *data,
> + struct pt_regs *regs);
> +#endif
If the function definitions are misordered then first do a patch that moves
the function earlier in the file, instead of slapping a random prototype
into a random place.
> - READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> + if (!(event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs)))
> +#endif
> + READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
This #ifdef would go away too - on !CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL event->prog should
always be NULL.
Please keep the #ifdeffery reduction and function-moving patches separate
from these other changes.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-10 4:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-14 17:39 [RESEND PATCH v5 0/4] Combine perf and bpf for fast eval of hw breakpoint conditions] Kyle Huey
2024-02-14 17:39 ` [RESEND PATCH v5 1/4] perf/bpf: Call bpf handler directly, not through overflow machinery Kyle Huey
2024-02-16 0:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-10 4:31 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2024-04-11 12:11 ` Kyle Huey
2024-04-12 1:47 ` Kyle Huey
2024-02-14 17:39 ` [RESEND PATCH v5 2/4] perf/bpf: Remove unneeded uses_default_overflow_handler Kyle Huey
2024-02-14 17:39 ` Kyle Huey
2024-02-16 0:12 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-16 0:12 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-10 4:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-04-10 4:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-02-14 17:39 ` [RESEND PATCH v5 3/4] perf/bpf: Allow a bpf program to suppress all sample side effects Kyle Huey
2024-02-16 0:13 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-16 1:59 ` Kyle Huey
2024-02-14 17:39 ` [RESEND PATCH v5 4/4] selftest/bpf: Test a perf bpf program that suppresses " Kyle Huey
2024-02-16 0:24 ` [RESEND PATCH v5 0/4] Combine perf and bpf for fast eval of hw breakpoint conditions] Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-10 4:37 ` Ingo Molnar
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=ZhYWPGX0RzamxOHx@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=khuey@kylehuey.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=me@kylehuey.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robert@ocallahan.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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.