Re: [RFCv3 00/19] x86/ftrace/bpf: Add batch support for direct/tracing attach

Jiri Olsa
2021-06-19T08:33:38Z

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 01:29:45PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:12 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > hi,
> > saga continues.. ;-) previous post is in here [1]
> >
> > After another discussion with Steven, he mentioned that if we fix
> > the ftrace graph problem with direct functions, he'd be open to
> > add batch interface for direct ftrace functions.
> >
> > He already had prove of concept fix for that, which I took and broke
> > up into several changes. I added the ftrace direct batch interface
> > and bpf new interface on top of that.
> >
> > It's not so many patches after all, so I thought having them all
> > together will help the review, because they are all connected.
> > However I can break this up into separate patchsets if necessary.
> >
> > This patchset contains:
> >
> > 1) patches (1-4) that fix the ftrace graph tracing over the function
> > with direct trampolines attached
> > 2) patches (5-8) that add batch interface for ftrace direct function
> > register/unregister/modify
> > 3) patches (9-19) that add support to attach BPF program to multiple
> > functions
> >
> > In nutshell:
> >
> > Ad 1) moves the graph tracing setup before the direct trampoline
> > prepares the stack, so they don't clash
> >
> > Ad 2) uses ftrace_ops interface to register direct function with
> > all functions in ftrace_ops filter.
> >
> > Ad 3) creates special program and trampoline type to allow attachment
> > of multiple functions to single program.
> >
> > There're more detailed desriptions in related changelogs.
> >
> > I have working bpftrace multi attachment code on top this. I briefly
> > checked retsnoop and I think it could use the new API as well.
>
> Ok, so I had a bit of time and enthusiasm to try that with retsnoop.
> The ugly code is at [0] if you'd like to see what kind of changes I
> needed to make to use this (it won't work if you check it out because
> it needs your libbpf changes synced into submodule, which I only did
> locally). But here are some learnings from that experiment both to
> emphasize how important it is to make this work and how restrictive
> are some of the current limitations.
>
> First, good news. Using this mass-attach API to attach to almost 1000
> kernel functions goes from
>
> Plain fentry/fexit:
> ===================
> real 0m27.321s
> user 0m0.352s
> sys 0m20.919s
>
> to
>
> Mass-attach fentry/fexit:
> =========================
> real 0m2.728s
> user 0m0.329s
> sys 0m2.380s

I did not meassured the bpftrace speedup, because the new code
attached instantly ;-)

>
> It's a 10x speed up. And a good chunk of those 2.7 seconds is in some
> preparatory steps not related to fentry/fexit stuff.
>
> It's not exactly apples-to-apples, though, because the limitations you
> have right now prevents attaching both fentry and fexit programs to
> the same set of kernel functions. This makes it pretty useless for a

hum, you could do link_update with fexit program on the link fd,
like in the selftest, right?

> lot of cases, in particular for retsnoop. So I haven't really tested
> retsnoop end-to-end, I only verified that I do see fentries triggered,
> but can't have matching fexits. So the speed-up might be smaller due
> to additional fexit mass-attach (once that is allowed), but it's still
> a massive difference. So we absolutely need to get this optimization
> in.
>
> Few more thoughts, if you'd like to plan some more work ahead ;)
>
> 1. We need similar mass-attach functionality for kprobe/kretprobe, as
> there are use cases where kprobe are more useful than fentry (e.g., >6
> args funcs, or funcs with input arguments that are not supported by
> BPF verifier, like struct-by-value). It's not clear how to best
> represent this, given currently we attach kprobe through perf_event,
> but we'll need to think about this for sure.

I'm fighting with the '2 trampolines concept' at the moment, but the
mass attach for kprobes seems interesting ;-) will check

>
> 2. To make mass-attach fentry/fexit useful for practical purposes, it
> would be really great to have an ability to fetch traced function's
> IP. I.e., if we fentry/fexit func kern_func_abc, bpf_get_func_ip()
> would return IP of that functions that matches the one in
> /proc/kallsyms. Right now I do very brittle hacks to do that.

so I hoped that we could store ip always in ctx-8 and have
the bpf_get_func_ip helper to access that, but the BPF_PROG
macro does not pass ctx value to the program, just args

we could perhaps somehow store the ctx in BPF_PROG before calling
the bpf program, but I did not get to try that yet

>
> So all-in-all, super excited about this, but I hope all those issues
> are addressed to make retsnoop possible and fast.
>
> [0] https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop/commit/8a07bc4d8c47d025f755c108f92f0583e3fda6d8

thanks for checking on this,
jirka