On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:26:10PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:52:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Using kallsyms_lookup_names function to speed up symbols lookup in
> > kprobe multi link attachment and replacing with it the current
> > kprobe_multi_resolve_syms function.
> >
> > This speeds up bpftrace kprobe attachment:
> >
> > # perf stat -r 5 -e cycles ./src/bpftrace -e 'kprobe:x* { } i:ms:1 { exit(); }'
> > ...
> > 6.5681 +- 0.0225 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.34% )
> >
> > After:
> >
> > # perf stat -r 5 -e cycles ./src/bpftrace -e 'kprobe:x* { } i:ms:1 { exit(); }'
> > ...
> > 0.5661 +- 0.0275 seconds time elapsed ( +- 4.85% )
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index b26f3da943de..2602957225ba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -2226,6 +2226,72 @@ struct bpf_kprobe_multi_run_ctx {
> > unsigned long entry_ip;
> > };
> >
> > +struct user_syms {
> > + const char **syms;
> > + char *buf;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int copy_user_syms(struct user_syms *us, void __user *usyms, u32 cnt)
> > +{
> > + const char __user **usyms_copy = NULL;
> > + const char **syms = NULL;
> > + char *buf = NULL, *p;
> > + int err = -EFAULT;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + size_t size;
> > +
> > + size = cnt * sizeof(*usyms_copy);
> > +
> > + usyms_copy = kvmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!usyms_copy)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(usyms_copy, usyms, size))
> > + goto error;
> > +
> > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > + syms = kvmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!syms)
> > + goto error;
> > +
> > + /* TODO this potentially allocates lot of memory (~6MB in my tests
> > + * with attaching ~40k functions). I haven't seen this to fail yet,
> > + * but it could be changed to allocate memory gradually if needed.
> > + */
>
> Why would 6MB kvmalloc fail?
> If we don't have such memory the kernel will be ooming soon anyway.
> I don't think we'll see this kvmalloc triggering oom in practice.
> The verifier allocates a lot more memory to check large programs.
>
> imo this approach is fine. It's simple.
> Trying to do gradual alloc with realloc would be just guessing.
>
> Another option would be to ask user space (libbpf) to do the sort.
> There are pros and cons.
> This vmalloc+sort is slightly better imo.
ok, makes sense, will keep it
jirka
