From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] tracing/ftrace: guard syscall probe with preempt_notrace
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 21:33:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <90ca2fee-cdfb-4d48-ab9e-57d8d2b8b8d8@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241003210403.71d4aa67@gandalf.local.home>
On 2024-10-04 03:04, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 20:26:29 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>
>
>> static void ftrace_syscall_enter(void *data, struct pt_regs *regs, long id)
>> {
>> struct trace_array *tr = data;
>> struct trace_event_file *trace_file;
>> struct syscall_trace_enter *entry;
>> struct syscall_metadata *sys_data;
>> struct trace_event_buffer fbuffer;
>> unsigned long args[6];
>> int syscall_nr;
>> int size;
>>
>> syscall_nr = trace_get_syscall_nr(current, regs);
>> if (syscall_nr < 0 || syscall_nr >= NR_syscalls)
>> return;
>>
>> /* Here we're inside tp handler's rcu_read_lock_sched (__DO_TRACE) */
>> trace_file = rcu_dereference_sched(tr->enter_syscall_files[syscall_nr]);
>>
>> ^^^^ this function explicitly states that preempt needs to be disabled by
>> tracepoints.
>
> Ah, I should have known it was the syscall portion. I don't care for this
> hidden dependency. I rather add a preempt disable here and not expect it to
> be disabled when called.
Which is exactly what this patch is doing.
>
>>
>> if (!trace_file)
>> return;
>>
>> if (trace_trigger_soft_disabled(trace_file))
>> return;
>>
>> sys_data = syscall_nr_to_meta(syscall_nr);
>> if (!sys_data)
>> return;
>>
>> size = sizeof(*entry) + sizeof(unsigned long) * sys_data->nb_args;
>>
>> entry = trace_event_buffer_reserve(&fbuffer, trace_file, size);
>> ^^^^ it reserves space in the ring buffer without disabling preemption explicitly.
>>
>> And also:
>>
>> void *trace_event_buffer_reserve(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer,
>> struct trace_event_file *trace_file,
>> unsigned long len)
>> {
>> struct trace_event_call *event_call = trace_file->event_call;
>>
>> if ((trace_file->flags & EVENT_FILE_FL_PID_FILTER) &&
>> trace_event_ignore_this_pid(trace_file))
>> return NULL;
>>
>> /*
>> * If CONFIG_PREEMPTION is enabled, then the tracepoint itself disables
>> * preemption (adding one to the preempt_count). Since we are
>> * interested in the preempt_count at the time the tracepoint was
>> * hit, we need to subtract one to offset the increment.
>> */
>> ^^^ This function also explicitly expects preemption to be disabled.
>>
>> So I rest my case. The change I'm introducing for tracepoints
>> don't make any assumptions about whether or not each tracer require
>> preempt off or not: it keeps the behavior the _same_ as it was before.
>>
>> Then it's up to each tracer's developer to change the behavior of their
>> own callbacks as they see fit. But I'm not introducing regressions in
>> tracers with the "big switch" change of making syscall tracepoints
>> faultable. This will belong to changes that are specific to each tracer.
>
>
> I rather remove these dependencies at the source. So, IMHO, these places
> should be "fixed" first.
>
> At least for the ftrace users. But I think the same can be done for the
> other users as well. BPF already stated it just needs "migrate_disable()".
> Let's see what perf has.
>
> We can then audit all the tracepoint users to make sure they do not need
> preemption disabled.
Why does it need to be a broad refactoring of the entire world ? What is
wrong with the simple approach of introducing this tracepoint faultable
syscall support as a no-op from the tracer's perspective ?
Then we can build on top and figure out if we want to relax things
on a tracer-per-tracer basis.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-04 1:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-03 15:16 [PATCH v1 0/8] tracing: Allow system call tracepoints to handle page faults Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 1/8] tracing: Declare system call tracepoints with TRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 21:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 1:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 1:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 10:34 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 2/8] tracing/ftrace: guard syscall probe with preempt_notrace Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 1:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 1:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2024-10-04 13:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 14:18 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 14:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 14:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 14:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 14:51 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 20:04 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-04 20:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 3/8] tracing/perf: " Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:17 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 4/8] tracing/bpf: " Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-03 23:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-10-04 0:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-04 1:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 5/8] tracing: Allow system call tracepoints to handle page faults Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:35 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 6/8] tracing/ftrace: Add might_fault check to syscall probes Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:11 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 7/8] tracing/perf: " Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v1 8/8] tracing/bpf: " Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-03 22:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-04 0:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=90ca2fee-cdfb-4d48-ab9e-57d8d2b8b8d8@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjeanson@efficios.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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