> On Mar 29, 2022, at 7:47 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:39 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:19 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> TP_PROTO of sched_switch is updated with a new arg prev_state, which
>>>> causes runqslower load failure:
>>>>
>>>> libbpf: prog 'handle__sched_switch': BPF program load failed: Permission denied
>>>> libbpf: prog 'handle__sched_switch': -- BEGIN PROG LOAD LOG --
>>>> R1 type=ctx expected=fp
>>>> 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
>>>> ; int handle__sched_switch(u64 *ctx)
>>>> 0: (bf) r7 = r1 ; R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R7_w=ctx(off=0,imm=0)
>>>> ; struct task_struct *next = (struct task_struct *)ctx[2];
>>>> 1: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r7 +16)
>>>> func 'sched_switch' arg2 has btf_id 186 type STRUCT 'task_struct'
>>>> 2: R6_w=ptr_task_struct(off=0,imm=0) R7_w=ctx(off=0,imm=0)
>>>> ; struct task_struct *prev = (struct task_struct *)ctx[1];
>>>> 2: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r7 +8) ; R2_w=scalar() R7_w=ctx(off=0,imm=0)
>>>> 3: (b7) r1 = 0 ; R1_w=0
>>>> ; struct runq_event event = {};
>>>> 4: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1 ; R1_w=P0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000
>>>> 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r1 ; R1_w=P0 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=00000000
>>>> 6: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -24) = r1 ; R1_w=P0 R10=fp0 fp-24_w=00000000
>>>> 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -32) = r1 ; R1_w=P0 R10=fp0 fp-32_w=00000000
>>>> ; if (prev->__state == TASK_RUNNING)
>>>> 8: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 +24)
>>>> R2 invalid mem access 'scalar'
>>>> processed 9 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0
>>>> -- END PROG LOAD LOG --
>>>> libbpf: failed to load program 'handle__sched_switch'
>>>> libbpf: failed to load object 'runqslower_bpf'
>>>> libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'runqslower_bpf': -13
>>>> failed to load BPF object: -13
>>>>
>>>> Update runqslower to fix this issue. Also, as we are on this, use BPF_PROG
>>>> in runqslower for cleaner code.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: fa2c3254d7cf ("sched/tracing: Don't re-read p->state when emitting sched_switch event")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c | 19 +++++--------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be much less disruptive if that prev_state was added after
>>> "next", but oh well...
>>
>> Maybe we should change that.
>>
>> +Valentin and Steven, how about we change the order with the attached
>> diff (not the original patch in this thread, but the one at the end of
>> this email)?
>>
>>>
>>> But anyways, let's handle this in a way that can handle both old
>>> kernels and new ones and do the same change in libbpf-tool's
>>> runqslower ([0]). Can you please follow up there as well?
>>
>> Yeah, I will also fix that one.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We can use BPF CO-RE to detect which order of arguments running kernel
>>> has by checking prev_state field existence in struct
>>> trace_event_raw_sched_switch. Can you please try that? Use
>>> bpf_core_field_exists() for that.
>>
>> Do you mean something like
>>
>> if (bpf_core_field_exists(ctx->prev_state))
>> /* use ctx[2] and ctx[3] */
>> else
>> /* use ctx[1] and ctx[2] */
>
> yep, that's what I meant, except you don't have ctx->prev_state, you have to do:
>
> if (bpf_core_field_exists(((struct trace_event_raw_sched_switch
> *)0)->prev_state))
>
>>
>> ? I think we will need BTF for the arguments, which doesn't exist yet.
>> Did I miss something?
>
> Probably :) struct trace_event_raw_sched_switch is in vmlinux.h
> already for non-raw sched:sched_switch tracepoint. We just use that
> type information for feature probing. From BPF verifier's perspective,
> ctx[1] or ctx[2] will have proper BTF information (task_struct) during
> program validation.
Sigh. I run pahole and saw trace_event_raw_sched_switch. Somehow I
thought it was not the one.
Will send v2 tomorrow.
Thanks,
Song
