On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:10 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:43:46 +0800
> 梦龙董 <dongmenglong.8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I have done a simple benchmark on creating 1000
> > trampolines. It is slow, quite slow, which consume up to
> > 60s. We can't do it this way.
> >
> > Now, I have a bad idea. How about we introduce
> > a "dynamic trampoline"? The basic logic of it can be:
> >
> > """
> > save regs
> > bpfs = trampoline_lookup_ip(ip)
> > fentry = bpfs->fentries
> > while fentry:
> > fentry(ctx)
> > fentry = fentry->next
> >
> > call origin
> > save return value
> >
> > fexit = bpfs->fexits
> > while fexit:
> > fexit(ctx)
> > fexit = fexit->next
> >
> > xxxxxx
> > """
> >
> > And we lookup the "bpfs" by the function ip in a hash map
> > in trampoline_lookup_ip. The type of "bpfs" is:
> >
> > struct bpf_array {
> > struct bpf_prog *fentries;
> > struct bpf_prog *fexits;
> > struct bpf_prog *modify_returns;
> > }
> >
> > When we need to attach the bpf progA to function A/B/C,
> > we only need to create the bpf_arrayA, bpf_arrayB, bpf_arrayC
> > and add the progA to them, and insert them to the hash map
> > "direct_call_bpfs", and attach the "dynamic trampoline" to
> > A/B/C. If bpf_arrayA exist, just add progA to the tail of
> > bpf_arrayA->fentries. When we need to attach progB to
> > B/C, just add progB to bpf_arrayB->fentries and
> > bpf_arrayB->fentries.
> >
> > Compared to the trampoline, extra overhead is introduced
> > by the hash lookuping.
> >
> > I have not begun to code yet, and I am not sure the overhead is
> > acceptable. Considering that we also need to do hash lookup
> > by the function in kprobe_multi, maybe the overhead is
> > acceptable?
>
> Sounds like you are just recreating the function management that ftrace
> has. It also can add thousands of trampolines very quickly, because it does
> it in batches. It takes special synchronization steps to attach to fentry.
> ftrace (and I believe multi-kprobes) updates all the attachments for each
> step, so the synchronization needed is only done once.
>
> If you really want to have thousands of functions, why not just register it
> with ftrace itself. It will give you the arguments via the ftrace_regs
> structure. Can't you just register a program as the callback?
>
> It will probably make your accounting much easier, and just let ftrace
> handle the fentry logic. That's what it was made to do.
Absolutely agree.
There is no point re-inventing this logic.
Menlong,
before you hook up into ftrace check whether
it's going to be any different from kprobe-multi,
since it's the same ftrace underneath.
I suspect it will look exactly the same.
So it sounds like multi-fentry idea will be shelved once again.
