On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 4:30 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:34:26 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:28 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:47:10 -0700
> > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 6:04 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:21:38 -0700
> > > > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -static int __uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > > > > > - loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > > > > > +int uprobe_register_batch(struct inode *inode, int cnt,
> > > > > > + uprobe_consumer_fn get_uprobe_consumer, void *ctx)
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this interface just for avoiding memory allocation? Can't we just
> > > > > allocate a temporary array of *uprobe_consumer instead?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, exactly, to avoid the need for allocating another array that
> > > > would just contain pointers to uprobe_consumer. Consumers would never
> > > > just have an array of `struct uprobe_consumer *`, because
> > > > uprobe_consumer struct is embedded in some other struct, so the array
> > > > interface isn't the most convenient.
> > >
> > > OK, I understand it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you feel strongly, I can do an array, but this necessitates
> > > > allocating an extra array *and keeping it* for the entire duration of
> > > > BPF multi-uprobe link (attachment) existence, so it feels like a
> > > > waste. This is because we don't want to do anything that can fail in
> > > > the detachment logic (so no temporary array allocation there).
> > >
> > > No need to change it, that sounds reasonable.
> > >
> >
> > Great, thanks.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Anyways, let me know how you feel about keeping this callback.
> > >
> > > IMHO, maybe the interface function is better to change to
> > > `uprobe_consumer *next_uprobe_consumer(void **data)`. If caller
> > > side uses a linked list of structure, index access will need to
> > > follow the list every time.
> >
> > This would be problematic. Note how we call get_uprobe_consumer(i,
> > ctx) with i going from 0 to N in multiple independent loops. So if we
> > are only allowed to ask for the next consumer, then
> > uprobe_register_batch and uprobe_unregister_batch would need to build
> > its own internal index and remember ith instance. Which again means
> > more allocations and possibly failing uprobe_unregister_batch(), which
> > isn't great.
>
> No, I think we can use a cursor variable as;
>
> int uprobe_register_batch(struct inode *inode,
> uprobe_consumer_fn get_uprobe_consumer, void *ctx)
> {
> void *cur = ctx;
>
> while ((uc = get_uprobe_consumer(&cur)) != NULL) {
> ...
> }
>
> cur = ctx;
> while ((uc = get_uprobe_consumer(&cur)) != NULL) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> This can also remove the cnt.
Ok, if you prefer this I'll switch. It's a bit more cumbersome to use
for callers, but we have one right now, and might have another one, so
not a big deal.
>
> Thank you,
>
> >
> > For now this API works well, I propose to keep it as is. For linked
> > list case consumers would need to allocate one extra array or pay the
> > price of O(N) search (which might be ok, depending on how many uprobes
> > are being attached). But we don't have such consumers right now,
> > thankfully.
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
