[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200609152714.GE24868@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:27:14 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, tmricht@...ux.ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, mhiramat@...nel.org, iii@...ux.ibm.com,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf: Fix bpf prologue generation
Em Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:10:19AM +0200, Sumanth Korikkar escreveu:
> Issue:
> bpf_probe_read is no longer available for architecture which has
> overlapping address space. Hence bpf prologue generation fails
>
> Fix:
> Use bpf_probe_read_kernel for kernel member access. For user
> attribute access in kprobes, use bpf_probe_read_user.
>
> Other:
> @user attribute was introduced in commit 1e032f7cfa14 ("perf-probe:
> Add user memory access attribute support")
>
> Test:
> 1. ulimit -l 128 ; ./perf record -e tests/bpf_sched_setscheduler.c
> 2. cat tests/bpf_sched_setscheduler.c
>
> static void (*bpf_trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =
> (void *) 6;
> static int (*bpf_probe_read_user)(void *dst, __u32 size,
> const void *unsafe_ptr) = (void *) 112;
> static int (*bpf_probe_read_kernel)(void *dst, __u32 size,
> const void *unsafe_ptr) = (void *) 113;
>
> SEC("func=do_sched_setscheduler pid policy param->sched_priority@...r")
> int bpf_func__setscheduler(void *ctx, int err, pid_t pid, int policy,
> int param)
> {
> char fmt[] = "prio: %ld";
> bpf_trace_printk(fmt, sizeof(fmt), param);
> return 1;
> }
>
> char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> int _version SEC("version") = LINUX_VERSION_CODE;
>
> 3. ./perf script
> sched 305669 [000] 1614458.838675: perf_bpf_probe:func: (2904e508)
> pid=261614 policy=2 sched_priority=1
>
> 4. cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace
> <...>-309956 [006] .... 1616098.093957: 0: prio: 1
Thanks for providing a detailed set of steps to test your patch, that is
great!
I added this, an alterenative way to test it, combining all the aspects
in one 'perf trace' call:
Committer testing:
I had to add some missing headers in the bpf_sched_setscheduler.c test
proggie, then instead of using record+script I used 'perf trace' to
drive everything in one go:
# cat bpf_sched_setscheduler.c
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <bpf.h>
static void (*bpf_trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) = (void *) 6;
static int (*bpf_probe_read_user)(void *dst, __u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr) = (void *) 112;
static int (*bpf_probe_read_kernel)(void *dst, __u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr) = (void *) 113;
SEC("func=do_sched_setscheduler pid policy param->sched_priority@...r")
int bpf_func__setscheduler(void *ctx, int err, pid_t pid, int policy, int param)
{
char fmt[] = "prio: %ld";
bpf_trace_printk(fmt, sizeof(fmt), param);
return 1;
}
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
int _version SEC("version") = LINUX_VERSION_CODE;
#
#
# perf trace -e bpf_sched_setscheduler.c chrt -f 42 sleep 1
0.000 chrt/80125 perf_bpf_probe:func(__probe_ip: -1676607808, policy: 1, sched_priority: 42)
#
And even with backtraces :-)
# perf trace -e bpf_sched_setscheduler.c/max-stack=8/ chrt -f 42 sleep 1
0.000 chrt/79805 perf_bpf_probe:func(__probe_ip: -1676607808, policy: 1, sched_priority: 42)
do_sched_setscheduler ([kernel.kallsyms])
__x64_sys_sched_setscheduler ([kernel.kallsyms])
do_syscall_64 ([kernel.kallsyms])
entry_SYSCALL_64 ([kernel.kallsyms])
__GI___sched_setscheduler (/usr/lib64/libc-2.30.so)
#
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists