On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:11 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2022, at 11:43 PM, Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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))
>
> Actually, struct trace_event_raw_sched_switch is not the arguments we
> have for tp_btf. For both older and newer kernel, it is the same:
>
> struct trace_event_raw_sched_switch {
> struct trace_entry ent;
> char prev_comm[16];
> pid_t prev_pid;
> int prev_prio;
> long int prev_state;
> char next_comm[16];
> pid_t next_pid;
> int next_prio;
> char __data[0];
> };
>
> So I guess this check won't work?
Ah, you are right, we had prev_state in this struct before. There
seems to be func proto for each raw tracepoint:
typedef void (*btf_trace_sched_switch)(void *, bool, unsigned int,
struct task_struct *, struct task_struct *);
But I'm not sure if we can use that. I'll need to play with it a bit
tomorrow to see if any of bpf_core_xxx() checks can be used.
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
