Re: [RFC PATCH 00/22] perf tools: introduce 'perf bpf' command to load eBPF programs.

Wang Nan
2015-05-06T04:47:11Z

Hi Alexei Starovoitov,

Have you ever read this mail?

I'm very intrerested in triggering perf sample in BPF code.
You said it is not a problem. Could you please give me some
further information?

Thank you.

On 2015/5/5 14:14, Wang Nan wrote:
> On 2015/5/5 13:49, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 5/4/15 9:41 PM, Wang Nan wrote:
>>>
>>> That's great. Could you please append the description of 'llvm -s' into your README
>>> or comments? It has cost me a lot of time for dumping eBPF instructions so I decide to
>>> add it into perf...
>>
>> sure. it's just -filetype=asm flag to llc instead of -filetype=obj.
>> Eventually it will work as normal 'clang -S file.c' when few more
>> llvm commits are accepted upstream.
>>
>>>>> My collage He Kuang is working on variable accessing. Probing inside function body
>>>>> and accessing its local variable will be supported like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC("config") char _prog_config[] = "prog: func_name:1234 vara=localvara"
>>>>> int prog(struct pt_regs *ctx, unsigned long vara) {
>>>>> // vara is the value of localvara of function func_name
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> that would be great. I'm not sure though how you can achieve that
>>>> without changing C front-end ?
>>>
>>> It's not very difficult. He is trying to generate the loader of vara
>>> as prologue, then paste the prologue and the main eBPF program together.
>>> From the viewpoint of kernel bpf verifier, there is only one param (ctx); the
>>> prologue program fetches the value of vara then put it into a propoer register,
>>> then main program work.
>>
>> got it. I think that's much cleaner than what I was proposing.
>> The only question is then:
>> char _prog_config[] = "prog: func_name:1234 vara=localvara"
>> should actually be something like "... r2=localvara", right?
>> since prologue would need to assign into r2.
>> Otherwise I don't see where you find out about 'vara' inside
>> compiled bpf code.
>>
>
> I think the calling convention could teach us which var should go to which
> register. In the case of
>
> SEC("config") char _prog_config[] = "prog: func_name:1234 vara=localvara varb=globalvarb";
> int prog(struct pt_regs *ctx, unsigned long vara, unsigned long varb) { ... }
>
> llvm should compile 'prog' according to calling convention. The body of that
> program should assume vara in r2 and varb in r3. The prologue also puts the vars into
> r2 and r3 according to calling convention. Therefore, after paste them together, the final
> program should run properly. There is no need to describe register number explicitly.
> What do you think?
>
>
>> Would be nice if this can be done without debug info.
>> Like in tracex2_kern.c I have:
>> SEC("kprobe/sys_write")
>> int bpf_prog(struct pt_regs *ctx)
>> {
>> long wr_size = ctx->dx; /* arg3 */
>>
>> with your prolog generator the above can be rewritten as:
>> SEC("kprobe/sys_write")
>> int bpf_prog(struct pt_regs *unused, int fd, char *buf, size_t wr_size)
>> {
>> /* use wr_size */
>>
>> that will improve ease of use a lot.
>>
>
> It is possible if probing on the entry of a function. However, when probing on
> function body, there still need a way to pass variable list required by the
> program to perf to let it generate correct prologue. We'd like to implement
> the generic one (list vars in config string) first, then make function
> parameters accessing as a syntax sugar.
>
>>> Another possible solution is to change the protocol between kprobe and eBPF
>>> program, makes kprobes calls fetchers and passes them to eBPF program as
>>> a second param (group all varx together).
>>> A prologue may still need in this case to load each param into correct
>>> register.
>>
>> you mean grouping varx together in some other struct and embedding it
>> together with pt_regs into new container struct?
>> doable, but your first approach is quite clean already. why bother.
>>
>
> The second approach makes us reuse the fetchers code which are already in
> kernel. Further more, if new type of fetchers are appear (for example, fetcher
> of PMU counter), we support it automatically.
>
>>> Could you please consider the following problem?
>>>
>>> We find there are serval __lock_page() calls last very long time. We are going
>>> to find corresponding __unlock_page() so we can know what blocks them. We want to
>>> insert eBPF programs before io_schedule() in __lock_page(), and also add eBPF program
>>> on the entry of __unlock_page(), so we can compute the interval between page locking and
>>> unlocking. If time is longer than a threshold, let __unlock_page() trigger a perf sampling
>>> so we get its call stack. In this case, eBPF program acts as a trace filter.
>>
>> all makes sense and your use case fits quite well into existing
>> bpf+kprobe model. I'm not sure why you're calling a 'problem'.
>> A problem of how to display that call stack from perf?
>> I would say it fits better as a sample than a trace.
>> If you dump it as a trace, it won't easy to decipher, whereas if you
>> treat it a sampling event, perf record/report facility will pick it up and display nicely. Meaning that one sample == lock_page/unlock_page
>> latency > N. Then existing sample_callchain flag should work.
>>
>
> Quite well. Do we have an eBPF function like
>
> static int (*bpf_perf_sample)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) = BPF_FUNC_perf_sample
>
> so we can use it in the program probed in the body of __unlock_page() like that:
>
> ...
> if (latency > 0.5s)
> bpf_perf_sample("page=%p, latency=%d", sizeof(...), page, latency);
> ...
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>