Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 4:59 AM Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/07/2023 08:16, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 3:58 AM Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> Currently the raw TSC counter can be read within kernel via rdtsc_ordered()
> > >>> and friends, and additionally even userspace has access to it via the
> > >>> RDTSC assembly instruction. BPF programs on the other hand don't have
> > >>> direct access to the TSC counter, but alternatively must go through the
> > >>> performance subsystem (bpf_perf_event_read), which only provides relative
> > >>> value compared to the start point of the program, and is also much slower
> > >>> than the direct read. Add a new BPF helper definition for bpf_rdtsc() which
> > >>> can be used for any accurate profiling needs.
> > >>>
> > >>> A use-case for the new API is for example wakeup latency tracing via
> > >>> eBPF on Intel architecture, where it is extremely beneficial to be able
> > >>> to get raw TSC timestamps and compare these directly to the value
> > >>> programmed to the MSR_IA32_TSC_DEADLINE register. This way a direct
> > >>> latency value from the hardware interrupt to the execution of the
> > >>> interrupt handler can be calculated. Having the functionality within
> > >>> eBPF also has added benefits of allowing to filter any other relevant
> > >>> data like C-state residency values, and also to drop any irrelevant
> > >>> data points directly in the kernel context, without passing all the
> > >>> data to userspace for post-processing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h | 1 +
> > >>> arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > >>> index 65ec1965cd28..3dde673cb563 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > >>> @@ -309,6 +309,7 @@ struct msr *msrs_alloc(void);
> > >>> void msrs_free(struct msr *msrs);
> > >>> int msr_set_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit);
> > >>> int msr_clear_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit);
> > >>> +u64 bpf_rdtsc(void);
> > >>>
> > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >>> int rdmsr_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u32 *l, u32 *h);
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > >>> index 344698852146..ded857abef81 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > >>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
> > >>> #include <linux/timex.h>
> > >>> #include <linux/static_key.h>
> > >>> #include <linux/static_call.h>
> > >>> +#include <linux/btf.h>
> > >>> +#include <linux/btf_ids.h>
> > >>>
> > >>> #include <asm/hpet.h>
> > >>> #include <asm/timer.h>
> > >>> @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@
> > >>> #include <asm/intel-family.h>
> > >>> #include <asm/i8259.h>
> > >>> #include <asm/uv/uv.h>
> > >>> +#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > >>>
> > >>> unsigned int __read_mostly cpu_khz; /* TSC clocks / usec, not used here */
> > >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_khz);
> > >>> @@ -1551,6 +1554,24 @@ void __init tsc_early_init(void)
> > >>> tsc_enable_sched_clock();
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> +u64 bpf_rdtsc(void)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + /* Check if Time Stamp is enabled only in ring 0 */
> > >>> + if (cr4_read_shadow() & X86_CR4_TSD)
> > >>> + return 0;
> > >> Why check this? It's always enabled in the kernel, no?
> >
> > It is always enabled, but there are certain syscalls that can be used to
> > disable the TSC access for oneself. prctl(PR_SET_TSC, ...) and
> > seccomp(SET_MODE_STRICT,...). Not having the check in place would in
> > theory allow a restricted BPF program to circumvent this (if there ever
> > was such a thing.) But yes, I do agree this part is a bit debatable
> > whether it should be there at all.
>
> What do you mean 'circumvent' ?
> It's a tracing bpf prog running in the kernel loaded by root
> and reading tsc for the purpose of the kernel.
> There is no unprivileged access to tsc here.
>
> >
> > >>> +
> > >>> + return rdtsc_ordered();
> > >> Why _ordered? Why not just rdtsc ?
> > >> Especially since you want to trace latency. Extra lfence will ruin
> > >> the measurements.
> > >>
> > > If we used it as a fast way to order events on multiple CPUs I
> > > guess we need the lfence? We use ktime_get_ns() now for things
> > > like this when we just need an order counter. We have also
> > > observed time going backwards with this and have heuristics
> > > to correct it but its rare.
> >
> > Yeah, I think it is better to induce some extra latency instead of
> > having some weird ordering issues with the timestamps.
>
> lfence is not 'some extra latency'.
> I suspect rdtsc_ordered() will be slower than bpf_ktime_get_ns().
> What's the point of using it then?
I would only use it if its faster then bpf_ktime_get_ns() and
have already figured out how to handle rare unordered events
so I think its OK to relax somewhat strict ordering.
>
> >
> > Also, things like the ftrace also use rdtsc_ordered() as its underlying
> > clock, if you use x86-tsc as the trace clock (see
> > arch/x86/kernel/trace_clock.c.)
> >
> > -Tero
> >
