> On Oct 28, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This patch set adds support for generating and deduplicating split BTF. This > is an enhancement to the BTF, which allows to designate one BTF as the "base > BTF" (e.g., vmlinux BTF), and one or more other BTFs as "split BTF" (e.g., > kernel module BTF), which are building upon and extending base BTF with extra > types and strings. > > Once loaded, split BTF appears as a single unified BTF superset of base BTF, > with continuous and transparent numbering scheme. This allows all the existing > users of BTF to work correctly and stay agnostic to the base/split BTFs > composition. The only difference is in how to instantiate split BTF: it > requires base BTF to be alread instantiated and passed to btf__new_xxx_split() > or btf__parse_xxx_split() "constructors" explicitly. > > This split approach is necessary if we are to have a reasonably-sized kernel > module BTFs. By deduping each kernel module's BTF individually, resulting > module BTFs contain copies of a lot of kernel types that are already present > in vmlinux BTF. Even those single copies result in a big BTF size bloat. On my > kernel configuration with 700 modules built, non-split BTF approach results in > 115MBs of BTFs across all modules. With split BTF deduplication approach, > total size is down to 5.2MBs total, which is on part with vmlinux BTF (at > around 4MBs). This seems reasonable and practical. As to why we'd need kernel > module BTFs, that should be pretty obvious to anyone using BPF at this point, > as it allows all the BTF-powered features to be used with kernel modules: > tp_btf, fentry/fexit/fmod_ret, lsm, bpf_iter, etc. Some high level questions. Do we plan to use split BTF for in-tree modules (those built together with the kernel) or out-of-tree modules (those built separately)? If it is for in-tree modules, is it possible to build split BTF into vmlinux BTF? Thanks, Song [...]
