linux-perf-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-04-10  4:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20240214173950.18570-1-khuey@kylehuey.com>
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
2024-02-16  0:12   ` Andrii Nakryiko
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

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 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).