From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Viktor Malik <vmalik@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>,
Howard Chu <howardchu95@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Petlan <mpetlan@redhat.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf trace: Refactor augmented_raw_syscalls using bpf_loop
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:35:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <akLXCFpnum0WgXGf@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3c221e35-d642-4036-88fd-d25df7f8807e@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 02:05:29PM +0200, Viktor Malik wrote:
> On 6/24/26 21:24, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 08:47:38AM +0200, Viktor Malik wrote:
> >> On 6/23/26 19:10, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 08:27:39AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>>> On Tue Jun 23, 2026 at 4:25 AM PDT, Viktor Malik wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> >>>>> + struct args_loop_ctx loop_ctx = {
> >>>>> + .args = args,
> >>>>> + .beauty_map = beauty_map,
> >>>>> + .payload_offset = payload_offset,
> >>>>> + .value_size = value_size,
> >>>>> + .output = &output,
> >>>>> + .do_output = &do_output
> >>>>> + };
> >>>>> + iters = bpf_loop(6, process_arg_cb, &loop_ctx, 0);
> >>>>
> >>>> bpf_loop() is old and generally not recommended.
> >>>> Please use bpf_for() then the diff will be one line change and
> >>>> can scale to any number of args. Not just 6.
> >>
> >> Thanks Alexei, I didn't know about this preference.
> >>
> >>> One thing we should take care is to support old kernels. The oldest
> >>> LTS kernel in the kernel.org is 5.10 and bpf_loop() was introduced in
> >>> 5.17 and bpf_for (bpf_iter_num) was 6.4.
> >>
> >> The problematic loop was introduced in 6.12 by a68fd6a6cdd3 ("perf
> >> trace: Collect augmented data using BPF") so we should be good using
> >> bpf_for. Or is perf from 7.2 supposed to work on 5.10 LTS kernels?
> >
> > Yep, we'd like to support old kernels.
>
> How much strict are you on this requirement? IMHO, the very least we
> need to fix the verifier issue is bpf_loop, so that would still not work
> on 5.10 and 5.15 LTS kernels.
I don't think it's an absolute requirement, but I think we don't want to
break any existing working setup (old kernel + old compiler).
>
> We could probably keep the open-coded loop in case bpf_loop is not
> available but `perf trace` would still fail on kernels without bpf_loop
> for new perf built with Clang>=22. Also, the code would be a bit ugly
> and I'm not sure how well the feature check for helpers (bpf_loop) works
> on old kernels.
Any chance process_arg_cb() can be called directly in the regular for
loop on old kernels?
Thanks,
Namhyung
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-29 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-23 11:25 [PATCH] perf trace: Refactor augmented_raw_syscalls using bpf_loop Viktor Malik
2026-06-23 15:27 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-06-23 17:10 ` Namhyung Kim
2026-06-24 6:47 ` Viktor Malik
2026-06-24 10:27 ` Viktor Malik
2026-06-24 17:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-06-25 11:58 ` Viktor Malik
2026-06-25 17:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-06-26 6:04 ` Viktor Malik
2026-06-24 19:24 ` Namhyung Kim
2026-06-25 12:05 ` Viktor Malik
2026-06-29 20:35 ` Namhyung Kim [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=akLXCFpnum0WgXGf@google.com \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=howardchu95@gmail.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=james.clark@linaro.org \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpetlan@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vmalik@redhat.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