From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 4/3] uprobe: ensure sys_uretprobe uses sysret
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:04:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZfrC0NZWxmWBuUIe@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfnoK8aQDJMgOYfY@krava>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:31:55PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:08:35PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:25:24AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Obviously not for inclusion yet ;) untested, lacks the comments, and I am not
> > > sure it makes sense.
> > >
> > > But I am wondering if this change can speedup uretprobes a bit more. Any chance
> > > you can test it?
> > >
> > > With 1/3 sys_uretprobe() changes regs->r11/cx, this is correct but implies iret.
> > > See the /* SYSRET requires RCX == RIP and R11 == EFLAGS */ code in do_syscall_64().
> >
> > nice idea, looks like sysexit should be faster
> >
> > >
> > > With this patch uretprobe_syscall_entry restores rcx/r11 itself and does retq,
> > > sys_uretprobe() needs to hijack regs->ip after uprobe_handle_trampoline() to
> > > make it possible.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Oleg.
> > > ---
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> > > index 069371e86180..b99f1d80a8c8 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> > > @@ -319,6 +319,9 @@ asm (
> > > "pushq %r11\n"
> > > "movq $462, %rax\n"
> > > "syscall\n"
> > > + "popq %r11\n"
> > > + "popq %rcx\n"
> > > + "retq\n"
> >
> > using rax space on stack for return pointer, cool :)
> >
> > I'll run the test with this change
>
> I got bigger speed up on intel, amd stays the same (I'll double check that)
yes, I'm getting no speed up on AMD, but Intel's great
Oleg,
are you ok if I squash the patches together or you
want to send it separately?
jirka
>
> current:
> base : 16.133 ± 0.035M/s
> uprobe-nop : 3.003 ± 0.002M/s
> uprobe-push : 2.829 ± 0.001M/s
> uprobe-ret : 1.101 ± 0.001M/s
> uretprobe-nop : 1.485 ± 0.001M/s
> uretprobe-push : 1.447 ± 0.000M/s
> uretprobe-ret : 0.812 ± 0.000M/s
>
> fix:
> base : 16.522 ± 0.103M/s
> uprobe-nop : 2.920 ± 0.034M/s
> uprobe-push : 2.749 ± 0.047M/s
> uprobe-ret : 1.094 ± 0.003M/s
> uretprobe-nop : 2.004 ± 0.006M/s < ~34% speed up
> uretprobe-push : 1.940 ± 0.003M/s < ~34% speed up
> uretprobe-ret : 0.921 ± 0.050M/s < ~13% speed up
>
> original fix:
> base : 15.704 ± 0.076M/s
> uprobe-nop : 2.841 ± 0.008M/s
> uprobe-push : 2.666 ± 0.029M/s
> uprobe-ret : 1.037 ± 0.008M/s
> uretprobe-nop : 1.718 ± 0.010M/s < ~25% speed up
> uretprobe-push : 1.658 ± 0.008M/s < ~23% speed up
> uretprobe-ret : 0.853 ± 0.004M/s < ~14% speed up
>
>
> jirka
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-20 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-18 9:31 [PATCH RFC bpf-next 0/3] uprobe: uretprobe speed up Jiri Olsa
2024-03-18 9:31 ` [PATCH RFC bpf-next 1/3] uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return probe Jiri Olsa
2024-03-18 14:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-19 1:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-19 6:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-19 16:20 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-19 10:54 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-18 9:31 ` [PATCH RFC bpf-next 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add uretprobe syscall test Jiri Olsa
2024-03-19 1:16 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-19 11:09 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-18 9:31 ` [PATCH RFC bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Mark uprobe trigger functions with nocf_check attribute Jiri Olsa
2024-03-19 1:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-19 11:11 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-22 13:40 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-19 10:25 ` [PATCH RFC bpf-next 4/3] uprobe: ensure sys_uretprobe uses sysret Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-19 11:08 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-19 16:25 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-19 16:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-19 19:35 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-19 19:31 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-19 20:13 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-20 11:04 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2024-03-20 14:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-20 15:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-20 17:44 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-20 19:08 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-21 10:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-21 9:59 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-21 10:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-21 10:52 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-21 12:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-03-21 20:29 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-22 8:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=ZfrC0NZWxmWBuUIe@krava \
--to=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.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