linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v7] net/core: Introduce netdev_core_stats

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <68eb65c5-1870-0776-0878-694a8b002a6d@linux.dev>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:43:43 +0800
From:   Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org,
        tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7] net/core: Introduce netdev_core_stats_inc()


On 2023/10/9 17:30, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:36 AM Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023/10/9 16:20, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:14 AM Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>>> On 2023/10/9 15:53, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 5:07 AM Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'this_cpu_read + this_cpu_write' and 'pr_info + this_cpu_inc' will make
>>>>>> the trace work well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They all have 'pop' instructions in them. This may be the key to making
>>>>>> the trace work well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need your help on percpu and ftrace.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think you made sure netdev_core_stats_inc() was never inlined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding more code in it is simply changing how the compiler decides to
>>>>> inline or not.
>>>> Yes, you are right. It needs to add the 'noinline' prefix. The
>>>> disassembly code will have 'pop'
>>>>
>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>> The function was fine, you do not need anything like push or pop.
>>>
>>> The only needed stuff was the call __fentry__.
>>>
>>> The fact that the function was inlined for some invocations was the
>>> issue, because the trace point
>>> is only planted in the out of line function.
>>
>> But somehow the following code isn't inline? They didn't need to add the
>> 'noinline' prefix.
>>
>> +               field = (unsigned long *)((void *)this_cpu_ptr(p) + offset);
>> +               WRITE_ONCE(*field, READ_ONCE(*field) + 1);
>>
>> Or
>> +               (*(unsigned long *)((void *)this_cpu_ptr(p) + offset))++;
>>
> I think you are very confused.
>
> You only want to trace netdev_core_stats_inc() entry point, not
> arbitrary pieces of it.


Yes, I will trace netdev_core_stats_inc() entry point. I mean to replace

+                                       field = (__force unsigned long 
__percpu *)((__force void *)p + offset);
+                                       this_cpu_inc(*field);

with

+               field = (unsigned long *)((void *)this_cpu_ptr(p) + offset);
+               WRITE_ONCE(*field, READ_ONCE(*field) + 1);

Or
+               (*(unsigned long *)((void *)this_cpu_ptr(p) + offset))++;

The netdev_core_stats_inc() entry point will work fine even if it doesn't
have 'noinline' prefix.

I don't know why this code needs to add 'noinline' prefix.
+               field = (__force unsigned long __percpu *)((__force void *)p + offset);
+               this_cpu_inc(*field);