On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:56 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:40:54 -0400 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:21:46 +0900 > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Then use kprobes. When I asked Masami what the difference between fprobes > > > > and kprobes was, he told me that it would be that it would no longer rely > > > > on the slower FTRACE_WITH_REGS. But currently, it still does. > > > > > > kprobes needs to keep using pt_regs because software-breakpoint exception > > > handler gets that. And fprobe is used for bpf multi-kprobe interface, > > > but I think it can be optional. > > > > > > So until user-land tool supports the ftrace_regs, you can just disable > > > using fprobes if CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS=n > > > > I'm confused. I asked about the difference between kprobes on ftrace > > and fprobes, and you said it was to get rid of the requirement of > > FTRACE_WITH_REGS. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230120205535.98998636329ca4d5f8325bc3@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Yes, it is for enabling fprobe (and fprobe-event) on more architectures. > I don't think it's possible to change everything at once. So, it will be > changed step by step. At the first step, I will replace pt_regs with > ftrace_regs, and make bpf_trace.c and fprobe_event depends on > FTRACE_WITH_REGS. > > At this point, we can split the problem into two, how to move bpf on > ftrace_regs and how to move fprobe-event on ftrace_regs. fprobe-event > change is not hard because it is closing in the kernel and I can do it. > But for BPF, I need to ask BPF user-land tools to support ftrace_regs. > > > > > > > > > Then you can safely use > > > > > > struct pt_regs *regs = ftrace_get_regs(fregs); > > > > > > I think we can just replace the CONFIG_FPROBE ifdefs with > > > CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > > And that will be the first version of using ftrace_regs in fprobe. > > > > But it is still slow. The FTRACE_WITH_REGS gives us the full pt_regs > > and saves all registers including flags, which is a very slow operation > > (and noticeable in profilers). > > Yes, to solve this part, we need to work with BPF user-land people. > I guess the BPF is accessing registers from pt_regs with fixed offset > which is calculated from pt_regs layout in the user-space. This is a non starter. bpf progs expect arch dependent 'struct pt_regs *' and we cannot change that.
