On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:34 AM Liao, Chang <liaochang1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Mark > > Would you like to discuss this patch further, or do you still believe emulating > STP to push FP/LR into the stack in kernel is not a good idea? > Please send an updated version of your patches taking into account various smaller issues Mark pointed out. But please keep STP emulation, I think it's very important, even if it's not covering all possible uprobe tracing scenarios. > Thanks. > > > 在 2024/8/21 15:55, Liao, Chang 写道: > > Hi, Mark > > > > My bad for taking so long to rely, I generally agree with your suggestions to > > STP emulation. > > > > 在 2024/8/15 17:58, Mark Rutland 写道: > >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 08:03:56AM +0000, Liao Chang wrote: > >>> As Andrii pointed out, the uprobe/uretprobe selftest bench run into a > >>> counterintuitive result that nop and push variants are much slower than > >>> ret variant [0]. The root cause lies in the arch_probe_analyse_insn(), > >>> which excludes 'nop' and 'stp' from the emulatable instructions list. > >>> This force the kernel returns to userspace and execute them out-of-line, > >>> then trapping back to kernel for running uprobe callback functions. This > >>> leads to a significant performance overhead compared to 'ret' variant, > >>> which is already emulated. > >> > >> I appreciate this might be surprising, but does it actually matter > >> outside of a microbenchmark? > > > > I just do a simple comparsion the performance impact of single-stepped and > > emulated STP on my local machine. Three user cases were measured: Redis GET and > > SET throughput (Request Per Second, RPS), and the time taken to execute a grep > > command on the "arch_uprobe_copy_xol" string within the kernel source. > > > > Redis GET (higher is better) > > ---------------------------- > > No uprobe: 49149.71 RPS > > Single-stepped STP: 46750.82 RPS > > Emulated STP: 48981.19 RPS > > > > Redis SET (larger is better) > > ---------------------------- > > No uprobe: 49761.14 RPS > > Single-stepped STP: 45255.01 RPS > > Emulated stp: 48619.21 RPS > > > > Grep (lower is better) > > ---------------------- > > No uprobe: 2.165s > > Single-stepped STP: 15.314s > > Emualted STP: 2.216s > > > > The result reveals single-stepped STP instruction that used to push fp/lr into > > stack significantly impacts the Redis and grep performance, leading to a notable > > notable decrease RPS and increase time individually. So emulating STP on the > > function entry might be a more viable option for uprobe. > > > >> > >>> Typicall uprobe is installed on 'nop' for USDT and on function entry > >>> which starts with the instrucion 'stp x29, x30, [sp, #imm]!' to push lr > >>> and fp into stack regardless kernel or userspace binary. > >> > >> Function entry doesn't always start with a STP; these days it's often a > >> BTI or PACIASP, and for non-leaf functions (or with shrink-wrapping in > >> the compiler), it could be any arbitrary instruction. This might happen > >> to be the common case today, but there are certain;y codebases where it > >> is not. > > > > Sure, if kernel, CPU and compiler support BTI and PAC, the entry instruction > > is definitly not STP. But for CPU and kernel lack of these supports, STP as > > the entry instruction is still the common case. And I profiled the entry > > instruction for all leaf and non-leaf function, the ratio of STP is 64.5% > > for redis, 76.1% for the BPF selftest bench. So I am thinking it is still > > useful to emulate the STP on the function entry. Perhaps, for CPU and kernel > > with BTI and PAC enabled, uprobe chooses the slower single-stepping to execute > > STP for pushing stack. > > > >> > >> STP (or any instruction that accesses memory) is fairly painful to > >> emulate because you need to ensure that the correct atomicity and > >> ordering properties are provided (e.g. an aligned STP should be > >> single-copy-atomic, but copy_to_user() doesn't guarantee that except by > >> chance), and that the correct VMSA behaviour is provided (e.g. when > >> interacting with MTE, POE, etc, while the uaccess primitives don't try > >> to be 100% equivalent to instructions in userspace). > > Agreed, but I don't think it has to emulate strictly the single-copy-atomic > > feature of STP that is used to push fp/lr into stack. In most cases, only one > > CPU will push registers to the same position on stack. And I barely understand > > why other CPUs would depends on the ordering of pushing data into stack. So it > > means the atomicity and ordering is not so important for this scenario. Regarding > > MTE and POE, a similar stragety to BTI and PAC can be applied: for CPUs and kernel > > with MTE and POE enabled, uprobe chooses the slower single-stepping to execute > > STP for pushing stack. > > > >> > >> For those reasons, in general I don't think we should be emulating any > >> instruction which accesses memory, and we should not try to emulate the > >> STP, but I think it's entirely reasonable to emulate NOP. > >> > >>> In order to > >>> improve the performance of handling uprobe for common usecases. This > >>> patch supports the emulation of Arm64 equvialents instructions of 'nop' > >>> and 'push'. The benchmark results below indicates the performance gain > >>> of emulation is obvious. > >>> > >>> On Kunpeng916 (Hi1616), 4 NUMA nodes, 64 Arm64 cores@2.4GHz. > >>> > >>> xol (1 cpus) > >>> ------------ > >>> uprobe-nop: 0.916 ± 0.001M/s (0.916M/prod) > >>> uprobe-push: 0.908 ± 0.001M/s (0.908M/prod) > >>> uprobe-ret: 1.855 ± 0.000M/s (1.855M/prod) > >>> uretprobe-nop: 0.640 ± 0.000M/s (0.640M/prod) > >>> uretprobe-push: 0.633 ± 0.001M/s (0.633M/prod) > >>> uretprobe-ret: 0.978 ± 0.003M/s (0.978M/prod) > >>> > >>> emulation (1 cpus) > >>> ------------------- > >>> uprobe-nop: 1.862 ± 0.002M/s (1.862M/prod) > >>> uprobe-push: 1.743 ± 0.006M/s (1.743M/prod) > >>> uprobe-ret: 1.840 ± 0.001M/s (1.840M/prod) > >>> uretprobe-nop: 0.964 ± 0.004M/s (0.964M/prod) > >>> uretprobe-push: 0.936 ± 0.004M/s (0.936M/prod) > >>> uretprobe-ret: 0.940 ± 0.001M/s (0.940M/prod) > >>> > >>> As shown above, the performance gap between 'nop/push' and 'ret' > >>> variants has been significantly reduced. Due to the emulation of 'push' > >>> instruction needs to access userspace memory, it spent more cycles than > >>> the other. > >>> > >>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAEf4BzaO4eG6hr2hzXYpn+7Uer4chS0R99zLn02ezZ5YruVuQw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 21 ++++++++++++++++++ > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c | 18 +++++++++++++-- > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.h | 3 ++- > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.h | 2 ++ > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/uprobes.c | 2 +- > >>> 6 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h > >>> index 8c0a36f72d6f..a246e6e550ba 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h > >>> @@ -549,6 +549,27 @@ static __always_inline bool aarch64_insn_uses_literal(u32 insn) > >>> aarch64_insn_is_prfm_lit(insn); > >>> } > >>> > >>> +static __always_inline bool aarch64_insn_is_nop(u32 insn) > >>> +{ > >>> + /* nop */ > >>> + return aarch64_insn_is_hint(insn) && > >>> + ((insn & 0xFE0) == AARCH64_INSN_HINT_NOP); > >>> +} > >> > >> This looks fine, but the comment can go. > > > > Removed. > > > >> > >>> +static __always_inline bool aarch64_insn_is_stp_fp_lr_sp_64b(u32 insn) > >>> +{ > >>> + /* > >>> + * The 1st instruction on function entry often follows the > >>> + * patten 'stp x29, x30, [sp, #imm]!' that pushing fp and lr > >>> + * into stack. > >>> + */ > >>> + return aarch64_insn_is_stp_pre(insn) && > >>> + (((insn >> 30) & 0x03) == 2) && /* opc == 10 */ > >>> + (((insn >> 5) & 0x1F) == 31) && /* Rn is sp */ > >>> + (((insn >> 10) & 0x1F) == 30) && /* Rt2 is x29 */ > >>> + (((insn >> 0) & 0x1F) == 29); /* Rt is x30 */ > >>> +} > >> > >> We have accessors for these fields. Please use them. > > > > Do you mean aarch64_insn_decode_register()? > > > >> > >> Regardless, as above I do not think we should have a helper this > >> specific (with Rn, Rt, and Rt2 values hard-coded) inside <asm/insn.h>. > > > > If we left necessary of emulation of STP aside, where would the best file to > > place these hard-coded decoder helper? > > > >> > >>> enum aarch64_insn_encoding_class aarch64_get_insn_class(u32 insn); > >>> u64 aarch64_insn_decode_immediate(enum aarch64_insn_imm_type type, u32 insn); > >>> u32 aarch64_insn_encode_immediate(enum aarch64_insn_imm_type type, > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c > >>> index 968d5fffe233..df7ca16fc763 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c > >>> @@ -73,8 +73,22 @@ static bool __kprobes aarch64_insn_is_steppable(u32 insn) > >>> * INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT If instruction is supported but doesn't use its slot. > >>> */ > >>> enum probe_insn __kprobes > >>> -arm_probe_decode_insn(probe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probe_insn *api) > >>> +arm_probe_decode_insn(probe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probe_insn *api, > >>> + bool kernel) > >>> { > >>> + /* > >>> + * While 'nop' and 'stp x29, x30, [sp, #imm]! instructions can > >>> + * execute in the out-of-line slot, simulating them in breakpoint > >>> + * handling offers better performance. > >>> + */ > >>> + if (aarch64_insn_is_nop(insn)) { > >>> + api->handler = simulate_nop; > >>> + return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT; > >>> + } else if (!kernel && aarch64_insn_is_stp_fp_lr_sp_64b(insn)) { > >>> + api->handler = simulate_stp_fp_lr_sp_64b; > >>> + return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT; > >>> + } > >> > >> With the STP emulation gone, you won't need the kernel parameter here.> > >>> + > >>> /* > >>> * Instructions reading or modifying the PC won't work from the XOL > >>> * slot. > >>> @@ -157,7 +171,7 @@ arm_kprobe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *addr, struct arch_specific_insn *asi) > >>> else > >>> scan_end = addr - MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE; > >>> } > >>> - decoded = arm_probe_decode_insn(insn, &asi->api); > >>> + decoded = arm_probe_decode_insn(insn, &asi->api, true); > >>> > >>> if (decoded != INSN_REJECTED && scan_end) > >>> if (is_probed_address_atomic(addr - 1, scan_end)) > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.h b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.h > >>> index 8b758c5a2062..ec4607189933 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.h > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.h > >>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ enum probe_insn __kprobes > >>> arm_kprobe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *addr, struct arch_specific_insn *asi); > >>> #endif > >>> enum probe_insn __kprobes > >>> -arm_probe_decode_insn(probe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probe_insn *asi); > >>> +arm_probe_decode_insn(probe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probe_insn *asi, > >>> + bool kernel); > >>> > >>> #endif /* _ARM_KERNEL_KPROBES_ARM64_H */ > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c > >>> index 22d0b3252476..0b1623fa7003 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c > >>> @@ -200,3 +200,31 @@ simulate_ldrsw_literal(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs) > >>> > >>> instruction_pointer_set(regs, instruction_pointer(regs) + 4); > >>> } > >>> + > >>> +void __kprobes > >>> +simulate_nop(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs) > >>> +{ > >>> + instruction_pointer_set(regs, instruction_pointer(regs) + 4); > >>> +} > >> > >> Hmm, this forgets to update the single-step state machine and PSTATE.BT, > >> and that's an extant bug in arch_uprobe_post_xol(). This can be: > > > > For emulated instruction, uprobe won't enable single-step mode of CPU, > > please check the handle_swbp() in kernel/events/uprobes.c: > > > > if (arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(&uprobe->arch, regs)) > > goto out; > > > > if (!pre_ssout(uprobe, regs, bp_vaddr)) > > return; > > > > For emualted instruction, It will skip entire single-stepping and associated > > exception, which typically begins with pre_ssout() and ends with > > arch_uprobe_post_xol(). Therefore, using instruction_pointer_set() to emulate > > NOP is generally not a bad idea. > > > >> > >> | void __kprobes > >> | simulate_nop(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs) > >> | { > >> | arm64_skip_faulting_instruction(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE); > >> | } > >> > >>> + > >>> +void __kprobes > >>> +simulate_stp_fp_lr_sp_64b(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs) > >>> +{ > >>> + long imm7; > >>> + u64 buf[2]; > >>> + long new_sp; > >>> + > >>> + imm7 = sign_extend64((opcode >> 15) & 0x7f, 6); > >>> + new_sp = regs->sp + (imm7 << 3); > >> > >> We have accessors for these fields, please use them. > > > > Do you mean aarch64_insn_decode_immediate()? > > > >> > >>> + > >>> + buf[0] = regs->regs[29]; > >>> + buf[1] = regs->regs[30]; > >>> + > >>> + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)new_sp, buf, sizeof(buf))) { > >>> + force_sig(SIGSEGV); > >>> + return; > >>> + } > >> > >> As above, this won't interact with VMSA features (e.g. MTE, POE) in the > >> same way as an STP in userspace, and this will not have the same > >> atomicity properties as an STP> > >>> + > >>> + regs->sp = new_sp; > >>> + instruction_pointer_set(regs, instruction_pointer(regs) + 4); > >> > >> Likewise, this sould need ot use arm64_skip_faulting_instruction(), > >> though as above I think we should drop STP emulation entirely. > > > > I explain the reason why using instruction_pointer_set() under your comments > > for simulate_nop(). > > > > Thanks. > > > >> > >> Mark. > >> > > > > -- > BR > Liao, Chang >
