Date:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:37:19 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)" 
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: introduce helper
 bpf_get_branch_snapshot

On 8/31/21 2:24 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:41:05PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>>>
>>>> @@ -564,6 +565,18 @@ static void notrace inc_misses_counter(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>> u64 notrace __bpf_prog_enter(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>> 	__acquires(RCU)
>>>> {
>>> 	preempt_disable_notrace();
>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
>>>> +	/* Calling migrate_disable costs two entries in the LBR. To save
>>>> +	 * some entries, we call perf_snapshot_branch_stack before
>>>> +	 * migrate_disable to save some entries. This is OK because we
>>>> +	 * care about the branch trace before entering the BPF program.
>>>> +	 * If migrate happens exactly here, there isn't much we can do to
>>>> +	 * preserve the data.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (prog->call_get_branch)
>>>> +		static_call(perf_snapshot_branch_stack)(
>>>> +			this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_perf_branch_snapshot));
>>>
>>> Here the comment is accurate, but if you recall the calling context
>>> requirements of perf_snapshot_branch_stack from the last patch, you'll
>>> see it requires you have at the very least preemption disabled, which
>>> you just violated.
>>
>>>
>>> I think you'll find that (on x86 at least) the suggested
>>> preempt_disable_notrace() incurs no additional branches.
>>>
>>> Still, there is the next point to consider...
>>>
>>>> +#endif
>>>> 	rcu_read_lock();
>>>> 	migrate_disable();
>>>
>>> 	preempt_enable_notrace();
>>
>> Do we want preempt_enable_notrace() after migrate_disable()? It feels a
>> little weird to me.
>>
>>>
>>>> 	if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(*(prog->active)) != 1)) {
>>>
>>>> @@ -1863,9 +1892,23 @@ void bpf_put_raw_tracepoint(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp)
>>>> 	preempt_enable();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct perf_branch_snapshot, bpf_perf_branch_snapshot);
>>>> +
>>>> static __always_inline
>>>> void __bpf_trace_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 *args)
>>>> {
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
>>>> +	/* Calling migrate_disable costs two entries in the LBR. To save
>>>> +	 * some entries, we call perf_snapshot_branch_stack before
>>>> +	 * migrate_disable to save some entries. This is OK because we
>>>> +	 * care about the branch trace before entering the BPF program.
>>>> +	 * If migrate happens exactly here, there isn't much we can do to
>>>> +	 * preserve the data.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (prog->call_get_branch)
>>>> +		static_call(perf_snapshot_branch_stack)(
>>>> +			this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_perf_branch_snapshot));
>>>> +#endif
>>>> 	cant_sleep();
>>>
>>> In the face of ^^^^^^ the comment makes no sense. Still, what are the
>>> nesting rules for __bpf_trace_run() and __bpf_prog_enter() ? I'm
>>> thinking the trace one can nest inside an occurence of prog, at which
>>> point you have pieces.
>>
>> I think broken LBR records is something we cannot really avoid in case
>> of nesting. OTOH, these should be rare cases and will not hurt the results
>> in most the use cases.
>>
>> I should probably tighten the rules in verifier to only apply it for
>> __bpf_prog_enter (where we have the primary use case). We can enable it
>> for other program types when there are other use cases.
> 
> Update about some offline discussion with Alexei and Andrii. We are planning
> to move static_call(perf_snapshot_branch_stack) to inside the helper
> bpf_get_branch_snapshot. This change has a few benefit:
> 
> 1. No need for extra check (prog->call_get_branch) before every program (even
>     when the program doesn't use the helper).
> 
> 2. No need to duplicate code of different BPF program hook.
> 3. BPF program always run with migrate_disable(), so it is not necessary to
>     run add extra preempt_disable_notrace.
> 
> It does flushes a few more LBR entries. But the result seems ok:
> 
> ID: 0 from intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+58 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+93
> ID: 1 from intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+54 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+58
> ID: 2 from intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+88 to intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all+0
> ID: 3 from bpf_get_branch_snapshot+28 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+0
> ID: 4 from <bpf_tramepoline> to bpf_get_branch_snapshot+0
> ID: 5 from <bpf_tramepoline> to <bpf_tramepoline>
> ID: 6 from __bpf_prog_enter+34 to <bpf_tramepoline>
> ID: 7 from migrate_disable+60 to __bpf_prog_enter+9
> ID: 8 from __bpf_prog_enter+4 to migrate_disable+0

If we make migrate_disable 'static inline' it will save these 2 entries.
It's probably worth doing regardless, since it will be immediate
performance benefit for all bpf programs.

> ID: 9 from __bpf_prog_enter+4 to __bpf_prog_enter+0
> ID: 10 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+22 to __bpf_prog_enter+0
> ID: 11 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 12 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 13 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 14 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> ID: 15 from bpf_fexit_loop_test1+20 to bpf_fexit_loop_test1+13
> 
> We can save more by inlining intel_pmu_lbr_disable_all(). But it is probably
> not necessary at the moment.
> 
> Thanks,
> Song
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists