Re: [PATCH v4 09/16] perf tools: Enable indices setting syntax for BPF maps

pi3orama
2015-12-11T12:58:08Z

发自我的 iPhone

> 在 2015年12月11日，下午8:47，Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> 写道：
>
> Em Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:39:35PM +0800, pi3orama escreveu:
>>
>>
>> 发自我的 iPhone
>>
>>> 在 2015年12月11日，下午8:15，Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> 写道：
>>>
>>> Em Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:11:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>>>> Em Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 02:25:37AM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu:
>>>>> This patch introduce a new syntax to perf event parser:
>>>>>
>>>>> # perf record -e bpf_file.c/maps.mymap.value[0,3...5,7]=1234/ ...
>>>>
>>>> Is the above example valid? Wouldn't this be "maps:mymap.value" ?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By utilizing the basic facilities in bpf-loader.c which allow setting
>>>>> different slots in a BPF map separately, the newly introduced syntax
>>>>> allows perf to control specific elements in a BPF map.
>>>>>
>>>>> Test result:
>>>>>
>>>>> # cat ./test_bpf_map_3.c
>>>>> /************************ BEGIN **************************/
>>>>> #define SEC(NAME) __attribute__((section(NAME), used))
>>>>> enum bpf_map_type {
>>>>> BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY = 2,
>>>>> };
>>>>> struct bpf_map_def {
>>>>> unsigned int type;
>>>>> unsigned int key_size;
>>>>> unsigned int value_size;
>>>>> unsigned int max_entries;
>>>>> };
>>>>> static void *(*map_lookup_elem)(struct bpf_map_def *, void *) =
>>>>> (void *)1;
>>>>> static int (*bpf_trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =
>>>>> (void *)6;
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain the above a bit more? What are the magic 1 and 6 values?
>>>
>>> So, from another patch:
>>>
>>> static u64 (*bpf_ktime_get_ns)(void) =
>>> (void *)5;
>>> static int (*bpf_trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =
>>> (void *)6;
>>> static int (*bpf_get_smp_processor_id)(void) =
>>> (void *)8;
>>> static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *, struct bpf_map_def *, int,
>>> void *, unsigned long) =
>>> (void *)23;
>>>
>>> Where can I get this magical mistery table? Could this be hidden away in
>>> some .h file automagically included in bpf scriptlets so that n00bies
>>> like me don't have to be wtf'ing?
>>
>> They are function numbers defined in bpf.h and bpf-common.h, but they are Linux
>> headers. Directly include them causes many error for llvm. Also, the function
>> prototypes are BPF specific and can't included in Linux source. We should have
>> a place holds those indices and prototypes together.
>
> Sure, just please don't assume whoever is reading your patches has this
> background, provide comments above such places, so that reviewing gets
> facilitated.
>
> I eventually figured this is some sort of trampoline to access kernel
> functions:
>
> /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which
> * helper function eBPF program intends to call
> */
> enum bpf_func_id {
> BPF_FUNC_unspec,
> BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem, /* void *map_lookup_elem(&map, &key) */
> BPF_FUNC_map_update_elem, /* int map_update_elem(&map, &key, &value, flags) */
> BPF_FUNC_map_delete_elem, /* int map_delete_elem(&map, &key) */
> BPF_FUNC_probe_read, /* int bpf_probe_read(void *dst, int size, void *src) */
>
>
> But if you had just:
>
> /*
> * See enum_bpf_func_id in ./include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> */
>
> That would've helped.
>

Thank you, but I think this is a good chance to setup the policy about the header
files for BPF. I suggested to put BPF specific headers into Linux kernel include dir,
but we must find a way to avoid Linux includes them. Another useful structure is
pt_regs, however which is not as important as before because we have prologue
now.

I'd like to have a try next week.

Thank you.

> - Arnaldo