On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:54:27AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:42:53AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 10:09 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 1:49 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> hi,
> > > > >> adding support to link bpftool with libbpf dynamically,
> > > > >> and config change for perf.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's now possible to use:
> > > > >> $ make -C tools/bpf/bpftool/ LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder what's the motivation behind these changes, though? Why is
> > > > > linking bpftool dynamically with libbpf is necessary and important?
> > > > > They are both developed tightly within kernel repo, so I fail to see
> > > > > what are the huge advantages one can get from linking them
> > > > > dynamically.
> > > >
> > > > Well, all the regular reasons for using dynamic linking (memory usage,
> > > > binary size, etc).
> > >
> > > bpftool is 327KB with statically linked libbpf. Hardly a huge problem
> > > for either binary size or memory usage. CPU instruction cache usage is
> > > also hardly a concern for bpftool specifically.
> > >
> > > > But in particular, the ability to update the libbpf
> > > > package if there's a serious bug, and have that be picked up by all
> > > > utilities making use of it.
> > >
> > > I agree, and that works only for utilities linking with libbpf
> > > dynamically. For tools that build statically, you'd have to update
> > > tools anyways. And if you can update libbpf, you can as well update
> > > bpftool at the same time, so I don't think linking bpftool statically
> > > with libbpf causes any new problems.
> >
> > it makes difference for us if we need to respin just one library
> > instead of several applications (bpftool and perf at the moment),
> > because of the bug in the library
> >
> > with the Toke's approach we compile some bits of libbpf statically into
> > bpftool, but there's still the official API in the dynamic libbpf that
> > we care about and that could carry on the fix without bpftool respin
>
> See my replies on v4 of your patchset. I have doubts this actually
> works as we hope it works.
>
> I also don't see how that is going to work in general. Imagine
> something like this:
>
> static int some_state = 123;
>
> LIBBPF_API void set_state(int x) { some_state = x; }
>
> int get_state() { return some_state; }
>
> If bpftool does:
>
> set_state(42);
> printf("%d\n", get_state());
>
>
> How is this supposed to work with set_state() coming from libbpf.so,
> while get_state() being statically linked? Who "owns" memory of `int
> some_state` -- bpftool or libbpf.so? Can they magically share it? Or
> rather maybe some_state will be actually two different variables in
> two different memory regions? And set_state() would be setting one of
> them, while get_state() would be reading another one?
>
> It would be good to test this out. Do you mind checking?
I think you're right.. sry, I should have checked on this more,
there are no relocations for libbpf.so, so it's all statically
linked and the libbpf is just in 'needed' libs record.. ugh :-\
jirka
