On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:06 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:17:39AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:42 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > hi, > > > I'm hitting performance issue and soft lock ups with the new version > > > of the patchset and the reason seems to be kallsyms lookup that we > > > need to do for each btf id we want to attach > > > > > > I tried to change kallsyms_lookup_name linear search into rbtree search, > > > but it has its own pitfalls like duplicate function names and it still > > > seems not to be fast enough when you want to attach like 30k functions > > > > How not fast enough is it exactly? How long does it take? > > 30k functions takes 75 seconds for me, it's loop calling bpf_check_attach_target > > getting soft lock up messages: > > krava33 login: [ 168.896671] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 26s! [bpftrace:1087] > That's without RB tree right? I was curious about the case of you converting kallsyms to RB tree and it still being slow. Can't imagine 30k queries against RB tree with ~160k kallsyms taking 75 seconds. But as I said, why not map BTF IDs into function names, sort function names, and then pass over kallsyms once, doing binary search into a sorted array of requested function names and then recording addr for each. Then check that you found addresses for all functions (it also leaves a question of what to do when we have multiple matching functions, but it's a problem with any approach). If everything checks out, you have a nice btf id -> func name -> func addr mapping. It's O(N log(M)), which sounds like it shouldn't be slow. Definitely not multiple seconds slow. > > > > > > > > > so I wonder we could 'fix this' by storing function address in BTF, > > > which would cut kallsyms lookup completely, because it'd be done in > > > compile time > > > > > > my first thought was to add extra BTF section for that, after discussion > > > with Arnaldo perhaps we could be able to store extra 8 bytes after > > > BTF_KIND_FUNC record, using one of the 'unused' bits in btf_type to > > > indicate that? or new BTF_KIND_FUNC2 type? > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > I'm strongly against this, because (besides the BTF bloat reason) we > > need similar mass attachment functionality for kprobe/kretprobe and > > that one won't be relying on BTF FUNCs, so I think it's better to > > stick to the same mechanism for figuring out the address of the > > function. > > ok > > > > > If RB tree is not feasible, we can do a linear search over unsorted > > kallsyms and do binary search over sorted function names (derived from > > BTF IDs). That would be O(Nlog(M)), where N is number of ksyms, M is > > number of BTF IDs/functions-to-be-attached-to. If we did have an RB > > tree for kallsyms (is it hard to support duplicates? why?) it could be > > even faster O(Mlog(N)). > > I had issues with generic kallsyms rbtree in the post some time ago, > I'll revisit it to check on details.. but having the tree with just > btf id functions might clear that.. I'll check That's not what I'm proposing. See above. Please let me know if something is not clear before going all in for RB tree implementation :) But while we are on topic, do you think (with ftrace changes you are doing) it would be hard to support multi-attach for kprobes/kretprobes? We now have bpf_link interface for attaching kprobes, so API can be pretty aligned with fentry/fexit, except instead of btf IDs we'd need to pass array of pointers of C strings, I suppose. > > thanks, > jirka > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > jirka > > > > > >
