On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:14:35 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:12:07 -0700 > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:21 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thus, what I need is to make fprobe to use function-graph tracer's shadow > > > stack and trampoline instead of rethook. This may need to generalize its > > > interface so that we can share it between fprobe and function-graph tracer, > > > but we don't need to involve rethook and kretprobes anymore. > > > > ... > > > > > And need to add patches > > > > > > - Introduce a generized function exit hook interface for ftrace. > > > - Replace rethook in fprobe with the function exit hook interface. > > > > you mean that rethook will be removed after that? > > No, it is too late. rethook is deeply integrated with kretprobe. > So when we remove the kretprobe, rethook will be removed too. > (fprobe and kretprobe provides similar functionality, so we can > move to fprobe) > > Even though, objpool(*) itself might be kept for some other use > cases. As far as I can see, ftrace_ret_stack can not provide a context > local storage between entry -> exit callbacks. (so this feature must > be dropped from fprobe) > > (*) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230905015255.81545-1-wuqiang.matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Oops, I rechecked the performance of objpool with prctl loop by perf stat -a -I 10000 --interval-count 4 -e syscalls:sys_enter_prctl And I found that with objpool, fprobe performance is the same as function-graph! noprobe kretprobe fprobe function-graph T1 10706762 8506402 10475887 11249096 T2 28698960 20972543 22567923 22586848 T4 56634397 41500675 45042714 44932685 T8 114910972 85211522 91560078 90068034 T16 228519966 169212249 181582171 181181211 T32 448049923 330408645 361074536 356221873 T64 623779515 450932779 499909030 495516920 objpool consumes more memory than current freelist (because it is just a list with counter) but that is limited. Usual use-case (per-probe node size is 128, # of cpu: 8) one probe will allocate 22KB. (100 probes will need 2.2MB) This is comparable to function graph ret-stack. So now I'm reconsidering the strategy. I might better to keep using rethook, but without ugly pt_regs casts. (e.g. use different trampoline if rethook user requires ftrace_regs) Sorry for confusing the direction. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
