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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).