[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78754aee-7c06-cbc3-b68c-d723f09b7f77@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 23:11:52 +0800
From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
CC: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<live-patching@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
<linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bpf: Optimize get_modules_for_addrs()
On 2023/1/9 21:48, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 04:51:37PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/1/6 17:45, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 10:31:12PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>>>> On Fri 2022-12-30 19:27:28, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>>>> Function __module_address() can quickly return the pointer of the module
>>>>>> to which an address belongs. We do not need to traverse the symbols of all
>>>>>> modules to check whether each address in addrs[] is the start address of
>>>>>> the corresponding symbol, because register_fprobe_ips() will do this check
>>>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> hum, for some reason I can see only replies to this patch and
>>>> not the actual patch.. I'll dig it out of the lore I guess
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming that there are m modules, each module has n symbols on average,
>>>>>> and the number of addresses 'addrs_cnt' is abbreviated as K. Then the time
>>>>>> complexity of the original method is O(K * log(K)) + O(m * n * log(K)),
>>>>>> and the time complexity of current method is O(K * (log(m) + M)), M <= m.
>>>>>> (m * n * log(K)) / (K * m) ==> n / log2(K). Even if n is 10 and K is 128,
>>>>>> the ratio is still greater than 1. Therefore, the new method will
>>>>>> generally have better performance.
>>>>
>>>> could you try to benchmark that? I tried something similar but was not
>>>> able to get better performance
>>>
>>> hm looks like I tried the smilar thing (below) like you did,
>>
>> Yes. I just found out you're working on this improvement, too.
>>
>>> but wasn't able to get better performace
>>
>> Your implementation below is already the limit that can be optimized.
>> If the performance is not improved, it indicates that this place is
>> not the bottleneck.
>>
>>>
>>> I guess your goal is to get rid of the module arg in
>>> module_kallsyms_on_each_symbol callback that we use?
>>
>> It's not a bad thing to keep argument 'mod' for function
>> module_kallsyms_on_each_symbol(), but for kallsyms_on_each_symbol(),
>> it's completely redundant. Now these two functions often use the
>> same hook function. So I carefully analyzed get_modules_for_addrs(),
>> which is the only place that involves the use of parameter 'mod'.
>> Looks like there's a possibility of eliminating parameter 'mod'.
>>
>>> I'm ok with the change if the performace is not worse
>>
>> OK, thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> jirka
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> index 5b9008bc597b..3280c22009f1 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> @@ -2692,23 +2692,16 @@ struct module_addr_args {
>>> int mods_cap;
>>> };
>>>
>>> -static int module_callback(void *data, const char *name,
>>> - struct module *mod, unsigned long addr)
>>> +static int add_module(struct module_addr_args *args, struct module *mod)
>>> {
>>> - struct module_addr_args *args = data;
>>> struct module **mods;
>>>
>>> - /* We iterate all modules symbols and for each we:
>>> - * - search for it in provided addresses array
>>> - * - if found we check if we already have the module pointer stored
>>> - * (we iterate modules sequentially, so we can check just the last
>>> - * module pointer)
>>> + /* We iterate sorted addresses and for each within module we:
>>> + * - check if we already have the module pointer stored for it
>>> + * (we iterate sorted addresses sequentially, so we can check
>>> + * just the last module pointer)
>>> * - take module reference and store it
>>> */
>>> - if (!bsearch(&addr, args->addrs, args->addrs_cnt, sizeof(addr),
>>> - bpf_kprobe_multi_addrs_cmp))
>>> - return 0;
>>> -
>>> if (args->mods && args->mods[args->mods_cnt - 1] == mod)
>>> return 0;
>>
>> There'll be problems Petr mentioned.
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/5/191
>
> ok, makes sense.. I guess we could just search args->mods in here?
> are you going to send new version, or should I update my patch with that?
It's better for you to update! I'm not familiar with the bpf module.
>
> thanks,
> jirka
> .
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists