From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Luigi Rizzo <lrizzo@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, ardb@kernel.org,
Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
giuseppe.lettieri@unipi.it,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] kstats: kernel metric collector
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:11:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878skpx7th.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMOZA0Lzf2r7rFvgBEWpf-B=wXvyED2CxfzuO7qUA_qVsNtL7g@mail.gmail.com>
Luigi Rizzo <lrizzo@google.com> writes:
> - the runtime cost and complexity of hooking bpf code is still a bit
> unclear to me. kretprobe or tracepoints are expensive, I suppose that
> some lean hook replace register_kretprobe() may exist and the
> difference from inline annotations would be marginal (we'd still need
> to put in the hooks around the code we want to time, though, so it
> wouldn't be a pure bpf solution). Any pointers to this are welcome;
> Alexei mentioned fentry/fexit and bpf trampolines, but I haven't found
> an example that lets me do something equivalent to kretprobe (take a
> timestamp before and one after a function without explicit
> instrumentation)
As Alexei said, with fentry/fexit the overhead should be on par with
your example. This functionality is pretty new, though, so I can
understand why it's not obvious how to do things with it yet :)
I think the best place to look is currently in selftests/bpf in the
kernel sources. Grep for 'fexit' and 'fentry' in the progs/ subdir.
test_overhead.c and kfree_skb.c seem to have some examples you may be
able to work from.
> - I still see some huge differences in usability, and this is in my
> opinion one very big difference between the two approaches. The
> systems where data collection may be of interest are not necessarily
> accessible to developers with the skills to write custom bpf code, or
> load bpf modules (security policies may prevent that). One thing is to
> tell a sysadmin to run "echo trace foo >
> /sys/kernel/debug/kstats/_config" or "watch grep CPUS
> /sys/kernel/debug/kstats/bar", another one is to tell them to load a
> bpf program (or write their own one).
With BPF the solution for this is to distribute a tool that does all the
setup for the user. Basically the userspace equivalent of what you're
proposing to include into the kernel here. You can make this arbitrarily
user-friendly, up to and including having a GUI list all the functions
available in the running kernel and letting the user just click on the
one to measure :)
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-26 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-26 13:50 [PATCH v3 0/2] kstats: kernel metric collector Luigi Rizzo
2020-02-26 13:50 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Luigi Rizzo
2020-02-26 14:48 ` Paolo Abeni
2020-03-10 13:58 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-10 16:44 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-11 0:08 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-11 3:30 ` kbuild test robot
2020-02-26 13:50 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] kstats: kretprobe and tracepoint support Luigi Rizzo
2020-02-26 15:00 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] kstats: kernel metric collector Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-02-26 16:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-26 17:26 ` Luigi Rizzo
2020-02-26 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-26 20:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-26 23:11 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2020-02-27 10:31 ` Luigi Rizzo
2020-02-27 12:13 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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=878skpx7th.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=giuseppe.lettieri@unipi.it \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrizzo@google.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rizzo@iet.unipi.it \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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