From: "Sebastião Santos Boavida Amaro" <sebastiao.amaro@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: uprobe overhead when specifying a pid
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:30:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dfdb91b06c3987e22a5f252324b55a4d@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZzW-GWh7Iqp-AxGA@krava>
I am using a normal SEC(uprobe) in the eBPF code. The workload is ycsb
(with 1 thread) running against a cluster of 3 Redis nodes, I filter the
uprobes for 3 pids (the Redis nodes).
When I profiled the machine with perf, I could not see glaring
differences. Should I repeat this and send the .data here?
Best Regards,
Sebastião
A 2024-11-14 09:08, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:33:01PM +0000, Sebastião Santos Boavida
> Amaro wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am using:
>> libbpf-cargo = "0.24.6"
>> libbpf-rs = "0.24.6"
>> libbpf-sys = "1.4.3"
>> On kernel 6.8.0-47-generic.
>> I contacted the libbpf-rs guys, and they told me this belonged here.
>> I am attaching 252 uprobes to a system, these symbols are not
>> regularly
>> called (90ish times over 9 minutes), however, when I specify a pid the
>> throughput drops 3 times from 12k ops/sec to 4k ops/sec. When I do not
>> specify a PID, and simply pass -1 the throughput remains the same (as
>> it
>> should, since 90 times is not significant to affect overhead I would
>> say).
>> It looks as if we are switching from userspace to kernel space without
>> triggering the uprobe.
>> Do not know if this is a known issue, it does not look like an
>> intended
>> behavior.
>
> hi,
> thanks for the report, I cc-ed some other folks and trace list
>
> I'm not aware about such slowdown, I think with pid filter in place
> there should be less work to do
>
> could you please provide more details?
> - do you know which uprobe interface you are using
> uprobe over perf event or uprobe_multi (likely uprobe_multi,
> because you said above you attach 250 probes)
> - more details on the workload, like is the threads/processes,
> how many and I guess you trigger bpf program
> - do you filter out single pid or more
> - could you profile the workload with perf
>
> thanks,
> jirka
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-19 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <66ba4183c94d28f7020c118029d45650@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
2024-11-14 9:08 ` uprobe overhead when specifying a pid Jiri Olsa
2024-11-19 13:30 ` Sebastião Santos Boavida Amaro [this message]
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=dfdb91b06c3987e22a5f252324b55a4d@tecnico.ulisboa.pt \
--to=sebastiao.amaro@tecnico.ulisboa.pt \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=olsajiri@gmail.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