[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CCB26BF8-9FF5-4BBF-84BE-878CF0D3882A@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:30:22 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 perf, bpf-next 1/7] perf, bpf: Introduce
PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Em Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 06:40:37PM +0000, Song Liu escreveu:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Em Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:21:05AM -0800, Song Liu escreveu:
>>>> For better performance analysis of dynamically JITed and loaded kernel
>>>> functions, such as BPF programs, this patch introduces
>>>> PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL, a new perf_event_type that exposes kernel symbol
>>>> register/unregister information to user space.
>>>>
>>>> The following data structure is used for PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL.
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * struct {
>>>> * struct perf_event_header header;
>>>> * u64 addr;
>>>> * u32 len;
>>>> * u16 ksym_type;
>>>> * u16 flags;
>>>> * char name[];
>>>> * struct sample_id sample_id;
>>>> * };
>>>> */
>>>
>>> So, I couldn't find where this gets used, the intention here is just to
>>> add the interfaces and afterwards is that you will wire this up? I would
>>> like to test the whole shebang to see it working.
>>
>> I guess you meant PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT not being used?
>>
>> PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL is used by BPF in 3/7 and 5/7. I tested
>
> Oops, I didn't look at 3/7, just read its cset summary line and as it
> says:
>
> Subject: [PATCH v6 perf, bpf-next 3/7] perf, bpf: introduce PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT
>
> I didn't thought it was related, perhaps break it down into one that
> states that it is wiring up PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL, and at that point we
> could just test it, getting the notifications for new kallsyms related
> to BPF?
Good idea! I will split it into two patches as:
[3/8] perf, bpf: generate PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL for BPF program
[4/8] perf, bpf: introduce PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT
>
>> PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT with dump_trace. As we separate RECORD_KSYMBOL from
>> RECORD_BPF_EVENT, user space won't use BPF_EVENT until annotation support.
>
> Right, so why not just introduce PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL, make it be used by
> tooling, etc, then move on to PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT?
I'd like to make sure we all agree on the new ABI for RECORD_KSYMBOL and
RECORD_BPF_EVENT. Multiple user space tools dependent on RECORD_BPF_EVENT,
for example, bcc and auditing. Finalizing RECORD_BPF_EVENT will unblock the
development of these tools. On perf side, it will take us quite some time
to finish annotation. Ideally, I don't want to block the development of
other tools for so long.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists