[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aIeCXbpno1y3Aio1@krava>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:59:57 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, mhiramat@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
revest@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v2 0/4] fprobe: use rhashtable for
fprobe_ip_table
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 03:22:49PM +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> For now, the budget of the hash table that is used for fprobe_ip_table is
> fixed, which is 256, and can cause huge overhead when the hooked functions
> is a huge quantity.
>
> In this series, we use rhltable for fprobe_ip_table to reduce the
> overhead.
>
> Meanwhile, we also add the benchmark testcase "kprobe-multi-all", which
> will hook all the kernel functions during the testing. Before this series,
> the performance is:
> usermode-count : 875.380 ± 0.366M/s
> kernel-count : 435.924 ± 0.461M/s
> syscall-count : 31.004 ± 0.017M/s
> fentry : 134.076 ± 1.752M/s
> fexit : 68.319 ± 0.055M/s
> fmodret : 71.530 ± 0.032M/s
> rawtp : 202.751 ± 0.138M/s
> tp : 79.562 ± 0.084M/s
> kprobe : 55.587 ± 0.028M/s
> kprobe-multi : 56.481 ± 0.043M/s
> kprobe-multi-all: 6.283 ± 0.005M/s << look this
> kretprobe : 22.378 ± 0.028M/s
> kretprobe-multi: 28.205 ± 0.025M/s
>
> With this series, the performance is:
> usermode-count : 902.387 ± 0.762M/s
> kernel-count : 427.356 ± 0.368M/s
> syscall-count : 30.830 ± 0.016M/s
> fentry : 135.554 ± 0.064M/s
> fexit : 68.317 ± 0.218M/s
> fmodret : 70.633 ± 0.275M/s
> rawtp : 193.404 ± 0.346M/s
> tp : 80.236 ± 0.068M/s
> kprobe : 55.200 ± 0.359M/s
> kprobe-multi : 54.304 ± 0.092M/s
> kprobe-multi-all: 54.487 ± 0.035M/s << look this
I meassured bit less speed up, but still great
kprobe-multi-all: 3.565 ± 0.047M/s
kprobe-multi-all: 11.553 ± 0.458M/s
could you add kretprobe-multi-all bench as well?
thanks,
jirka
> kretprobe : 22.381 ± 0.075M/s
> kretprobe-multi: 27.926 ± 0.034M/s
>
> The benchmark of "kprobe-multi-all" increase from 6.283M/s to 54.487M/s.
>
> The locking is not handled properly in the first patch. In the
> fprobe_entry, we should use RCU when we access the rhlist_head. However,
> we can't use RCU for __fprobe_handler, as it can sleep. In the origin
> logic, it seems that the usage of hlist_for_each_entry_from_rcu() is not
> protected by rcu_read_lock neither, isn't it? I don't know how to handle
> this part ;(
>
> Menglong Dong (4):
> fprobe: use rhltable for fprobe_ip_table
> selftests/bpf: move get_ksyms and get_addrs to trace_helpers.c
> selftests/bpf: skip recursive functions for kprobe_multi
> selftests/bpf: add benchmark testing for kprobe-multi-all
>
> include/linux/fprobe.h | 2 +-
> kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 141 ++++++-----
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 2 +
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c | 30 +++
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_trigger.sh | 2 +-
> .../bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c | 220 +----------------
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/trace_helpers.c | 230 ++++++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/trace_helpers.h | 3 +
> 8 files changed, 348 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.50.1
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists