Hello,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 3:48 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:21 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The recent change in the cgroup will break the backward compatiblity in
> > the BPF program. It should support both old and new kernels using BPF
> > CO-RE technique.
> >
> > Like the task_struct->__state handling in the offcpu analysis, we can
> > check the field name in the cgroup struct.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Arnaldo, I think this should go through the cgroup tree since it depends
> > on the earlier change there. I don't think it'd conflict with other
> > perf changes but please let me know if you see any trouble, thanks!
> >
> > tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bperf_cgroup.bpf.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bperf_cgroup.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bperf_cgroup.bpf.c
> > index 488bd398f01d..4fe61043de04 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bperf_cgroup.bpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bperf_cgroup.bpf.c
> > @@ -43,12 +43,39 @@ struct {
> > __uint(value_size, sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value));
> > } cgrp_readings SEC(".maps");
> >
> > +/* new kernel cgroup definition */
> > +struct cgroup___new {
> > + int level;
> > + struct cgroup *ancestors[];
> > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > +
> > +/* old kernel cgroup definition */
> > +struct cgroup___old {
> > + int level;
> > + u64 ancestor_ids[];
> > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > +
> > const volatile __u32 num_events = 1;
> > const volatile __u32 num_cpus = 1;
> >
> > int enabled = 0;
> > int use_cgroup_v2 = 0;
> >
> > +static inline __u64 get_cgroup_v1_ancestor_id(struct cgroup *cgrp, int level)
> > +{
> > + /* recast pointer to capture new type for compiler */
> > + struct cgroup___new *cgrp_new = (void *)cgrp;
> > +
> > + if (bpf_core_field_exists(cgrp_new->ancestors)) {
> > + return BPF_CORE_READ(cgrp_new, ancestors[level], kn, id);
>
> have you checked generated BPF code for this ancestors[level] access?
> I'd expect CO-RE relocation for finding ancestors offset and then just
> normal + level * 8 arithmetic, but would be nice to confirm. Apart
> from this, looks good to me:
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for your review!
How can I check the generated code? Do you have something works with
skeletons or do I have to save the BPF object somehow during the build?
Thanks,
Namhyung
