On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 11:33 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 01:29:45PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:12 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > hi, > > > saga continues.. ;-) previous post is in here [1] > > > > > > After another discussion with Steven, he mentioned that if we fix > > > the ftrace graph problem with direct functions, he'd be open to > > > add batch interface for direct ftrace functions. > > > > > > He already had prove of concept fix for that, which I took and broke > > > up into several changes. I added the ftrace direct batch interface > > > and bpf new interface on top of that. > > > > > > It's not so many patches after all, so I thought having them all > > > together will help the review, because they are all connected. > > > However I can break this up into separate patchsets if necessary. > > > > > > This patchset contains: > > > > > > 1) patches (1-4) that fix the ftrace graph tracing over the function > > > with direct trampolines attached > > > 2) patches (5-8) that add batch interface for ftrace direct function > > > register/unregister/modify > > > 3) patches (9-19) that add support to attach BPF program to multiple > > > functions > > > > > > In nutshell: > > > > > > Ad 1) moves the graph tracing setup before the direct trampoline > > > prepares the stack, so they don't clash > > > > > > Ad 2) uses ftrace_ops interface to register direct function with > > > all functions in ftrace_ops filter. > > > > > > Ad 3) creates special program and trampoline type to allow attachment > > > of multiple functions to single program. > > > > > > There're more detailed desriptions in related changelogs. > > > > > > I have working bpftrace multi attachment code on top this. I briefly > > > checked retsnoop and I think it could use the new API as well. > > > > Ok, so I had a bit of time and enthusiasm to try that with retsnoop. > > The ugly code is at [0] if you'd like to see what kind of changes I > > needed to make to use this (it won't work if you check it out because > > it needs your libbpf changes synced into submodule, which I only did > > locally). But here are some learnings from that experiment both to > > emphasize how important it is to make this work and how restrictive > > are some of the current limitations. > > > > First, good news. Using this mass-attach API to attach to almost 1000 > > kernel functions goes from > > > > Plain fentry/fexit: > > =================== > > real 0m27.321s > > user 0m0.352s > > sys 0m20.919s > > > > to > > > > Mass-attach fentry/fexit: > > ========================= > > real 0m2.728s > > user 0m0.329s > > sys 0m2.380s > > I did not meassured the bpftrace speedup, because the new code > attached instantly ;-) > > > > > It's a 10x speed up. And a good chunk of those 2.7 seconds is in some > > preparatory steps not related to fentry/fexit stuff. > > > > It's not exactly apples-to-apples, though, because the limitations you > > have right now prevents attaching both fentry and fexit programs to > > the same set of kernel functions. This makes it pretty useless for a > > hum, you could do link_update with fexit program on the link fd, > like in the selftest, right? Hm... I didn't realize we can attach two different prog FDs to the same link, honestly (and was too lazy to look through selftests again). I can try that later. But it's actually quite a counter-intuitive API (I honestly assumed that link_update can be used to add more BTF IDs, but not change prog_fd). Previously bpf_link was always associated with single BPF prog FD. It would be good to keep that property in the final version, but we can get back to that later. > > > lot of cases, in particular for retsnoop. So I haven't really tested > > retsnoop end-to-end, I only verified that I do see fentries triggered, > > but can't have matching fexits. So the speed-up might be smaller due > > to additional fexit mass-attach (once that is allowed), but it's still > > a massive difference. So we absolutely need to get this optimization > > in. > > > > Few more thoughts, if you'd like to plan some more work ahead ;) > > > > 1. We need similar mass-attach functionality for kprobe/kretprobe, as > > there are use cases where kprobe are more useful than fentry (e.g., >6 > > args funcs, or funcs with input arguments that are not supported by > > BPF verifier, like struct-by-value). It's not clear how to best > > represent this, given currently we attach kprobe through perf_event, > > but we'll need to think about this for sure. > > I'm fighting with the '2 trampolines concept' at the moment, but the > mass attach for kprobes seems interesting ;-) will check > > > > > 2. To make mass-attach fentry/fexit useful for practical purposes, it > > would be really great to have an ability to fetch traced function's > > IP. I.e., if we fentry/fexit func kern_func_abc, bpf_get_func_ip() > > would return IP of that functions that matches the one in > > /proc/kallsyms. Right now I do very brittle hacks to do that. > > so I hoped that we could store ip always in ctx-8 and have > the bpf_get_func_ip helper to access that, but the BPF_PROG > macro does not pass ctx value to the program, just args > > we could perhaps somehow store the ctx in BPF_PROG before calling > the bpf program, but I did not get to try that yet > > > > > So all-in-all, super excited about this, but I hope all those issues > > are addressed to make retsnoop possible and fast. > > > > [0] https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop/commit/8a07bc4d8c47d025f755c108f92f0583e3fda6d8 > > thanks for checking on this, > jirka >
