[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211118130507.170154-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:35:07 +0530
From: Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: acme@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, songliubraving@...com,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, kpsingh@...nel.org,
hawk@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
rnsastry@...ux.ibm.com, kjain@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: [PATCH v2] bpf: Remove config check to enable bpf support for branch records
Branch data available to bpf programs can be very useful to get
stack traces out of userspace application.
Commit fff7b64355ea ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper")
added bpf support to capture branch records in x86. Enable this feature
for other architectures as well by removing check specific to x86.
Incase any platform didn't support branch stack, it will return with
-EINVAL.
Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine with branch stacks
support.
Before this patch changes:
[command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches
#88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:FAIL
#88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK
#88 perf_branches:FAIL
Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED
After this patch changes:
[command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches
#88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:OK
#88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK
#88 perf_branches:OK
Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which doesn't
support branch stack
After this patch changes:
[command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches
#88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:SKIP
#88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK
#88 perf_branches:OK
Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Fixes: fff7b64355eac ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper")
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
---
Tested this patch changes on power9 machine using selftest
'perf branches' which is added in commit 67306f84ca78 ("selftests/bpf:
Add bpf_read_branch_records()")
Changelog:
v1 -> v2
- Inorder to add bpf support to capture branch record in
powerpc, rather then adding config for powerpc, entirely
remove config check from bpf_read_branch_records function
as suggested by Peter Zijlstra
- Link to the v1 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/14/434
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 7396488793ff..5e445985c6b4 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -1402,9 +1402,6 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_prog_read_value_proto = {
BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx,
void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags)
{
-#ifndef CONFIG_X86
- return -ENOENT;
-#else
static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry);
struct perf_branch_stack *br_stack = ctx->data->br_stack;
u32 to_copy;
@@ -1425,7 +1422,6 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx,
memcpy(buf, br_stack->entries, to_copy);
return to_copy;
-#endif
}
static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_read_branch_records_proto = {
--
2.27.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists