Message-ID: <YbNLPdrA80OMbzdS@krava>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:42:37 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf/kprobe: Add support to create multiple probes

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:50:09PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 07:15:58PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:53:58PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:41 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding support to create multiple probes within single perf event.
> > > > > This way we can associate single bpf program with multiple kprobes,
> > > > > because bpf program gets associated with the perf event.
> > > > >
> > > > > The perf_event_attr is not extended, current fields for kprobe
> > > > > attachment are used for multi attachment.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a bit concerned with complicating perf_event_attr further to
> > > > support this multi-attach. For BPF, at least, we now have
> > > > bpf_perf_link and corresponding BPF_LINK_CREATE command in bpf()
> > > > syscall which allows much simpler and cleaner API to do this. Libbpf
> > > > will actually pick bpf_link-based attachment if kernel supports it. I
> > > > think we should better do bpf_link-based approach from the get go.
> > > >
> > > > Another thing I'd like you to keep in mind and think about is BPF
> > > > cookie. Currently kprobe/uprobe/tracepoint allow to associate
> > > > arbitrary user-provided u64 value which will be accessible from BPF
> > > > program with bpf_get_attach_cookie(). With multi-attach kprobes this
> > > > because extremely crucial feature to support, otherwise it's both
> > > > expensive, inconvenient and complicated to be able to distinguish
> > > > between different instances of the same multi-attach kprobe
> > > > invocation. So with that, what would be the interface to specify these
> > > > BPF cookies for this multi-attach kprobe, if we are going through
> > > > perf_event_attr. Probably picking yet another unused field and
> > > > union-izing it with a pointer. It will work, but makes the interface
> > > > even more overloaded. While for LINK_CREATE we can just add another
> > > > pointer to a u64[] with the same size as number of kfunc names and
> > > > offsets.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure we could bypass perf event easily.. perhaps introduce
> > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_KPROBE as we did for tracepoints or just new
> > > type for multi kprobe attachment like BPF_PROG_TYPE_MULTI_KPROBE
> > > that might be that way we'd have full control over the API
> > 
> > Sure, new type works.
> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But other than that, I'm super happy that you are working on these
> > > > complicated multi-attach capabilities! It would be great to benchmark
> > > > one-by-one attachment vs multi-attach to the same set of kprobes once
> > > > you arrive at the final implementation.
> > >
> > > I have the change for bpftrace to use this and even though there's
> > > some speed up, it's not as substantial as for trampolines
> > >
> > > looks like we 'only' got rid of the multiple perf syscall overheads,
> > > compared to rcu syncs timeouts like we eliminated for trampolines
> > 
> > if it's just eliminating a pretty small overhead of multiple syscalls,
> > then it would be quite disappointing to add a bunch of complexity just
> > for that.
> 
> I meant it's not as huge save as for trampolines, but I expect some
> noticeable speedup, I'll make more becnhmarks with current patchset

so with this approach there's noticable speedup, but it's not the
'instant attachment speed' as for trampolines

as a base I used bpftrace with change that allows to reuse bpf program
for multiple kprobes

bpftrace standard attach of 672 kprobes:

  Performance counter stats for './src/bpftrace -vv -e kprobe:kvm* { @[kstack] += 1; }  i:ms:10 { printf("KRAVA\n"); exit() }':

      70.548897815 seconds time elapsed

       0.909996000 seconds user
      50.622834000 seconds sys


bpftrace using interface from this patchset attach of 673 kprobes:

  Performance counter stats for './src/bpftrace -vv -e kprobe:kvm* { @[kstack] += 1; }  i:ms:10 { printf("KRAVA\n"); exit() }':

      36.947586803 seconds time elapsed

       0.272585000 seconds user
      30.900831000 seconds sys


so it's noticeable, but I wonder it's not enough ;-)

jirka

> 
> > Are there any reasons we can't use the same low-level ftrace
> > batch attach API to speed this up considerably? I assume it's only
> > possible if kprobe is attached at the beginning of the function (not
> > sure how kretprobe is treated here), so we can either say that this
> > new kprobe prog type can only be attached at the beginning of each
> > function and enforce that (probably would be totally reasonable
> > assumption as that's what's happening most frequently in practice).
> > Worst case, should be possible to split all requested attach targets
> > into two groups, one fast at function entry and all the rest.
> > 
> > Am I too far off on this one? There might be some more complications
> > that I don't see.
> 
> I'd need to check more on kprobes internals, but.. ;-)
> 
> the new ftrace interface is special for 'direct' trampolines and
> I think that although kprobes can use ftrace for attaching, they
> use it in a different way
> 
> also this current 'multi attach' approach is on top of current kprobe
> interface, if we wanted to use the new ftrace API we'd need to add new
> kprobe interface and change the kprobe attaching to use it (for cases
> it's attached at the function entry)
> 
> jirka
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > I'll make full benchmarks once we have some final solution
> > >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists