[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP045AooA7mpk+uac-+JxP-PJX2fguVSKK+8o=qSB4p5LDtz6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:19:28 -0800
From: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/bpf: Allow a bpf program to suppress I/O signals.
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:07 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Add Marco Elver to CC.
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:16 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 02:18:49PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 12:14 PM Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> > > > suppresses any data output. This allows it to suppress I/O availability
> > > > signals too.
> > >
> > > make sense, just one question below
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> >
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/events/core.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > index b704d83a28b2..34d7b19d45eb 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > @@ -10417,8 +10417,10 @@ static void bpf_overflow_handler(struct perf_event *event,
> > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > out:
> > > > __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> > > > - if (!ret)
> > > > + if (!ret) {
> > > > + event->pending_kill = 0;
> > > > return;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > What's the distinction between event->pending_kill and
> > > event->pending_wakeup? Should we do something about pending_wakeup?
> > > Asking out of complete ignorance of all these perf specifics.
> > >
> >
> > I think zeroing pending_kill is enough.. when it's set the perf code
> > sets pending_wakeup to call perf_event_wakeup in irq code that wakes
> > up event's ring buffer readers and sends sigio if pending_kill is set
>
> Right, IIUC pending_wakeup is set by the ring buffer code when
> a task is waiting for events and it gets enough events (watermark).
> So I think it's good for ring buffer to manage the pending_wakeup.
>
> And pending_kill is set when a task wants a signal delivery even
> without getting enough events. Clearing pending_kill looks ok
> to suppress normal signals but I'm not sure if it's ok for SIGTRAP.
>
> If we want to handle returning 0 from bpf as if the event didn't
> happen, I think SIGTRAP and event_limit logic should be done
> after the overflow handler depending on pending_kill or something.
Hmm, yes, perhaps. The SIGTRAP thing (which I was previously unaware
of) would actually be more useful to us than an I/O signal.
I am slightly wary that event_limit appears to have no tests in the kernel tree.
- Kyle
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists