[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzaJByux3tJ=r47pj4SSzbDEShTW6yBVJg+g1sWsLerdbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:15:48 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jesper Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Viktor Malik <vmalik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 13/16] libbpf: Add trampoline batch attach support
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:09:26PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:03 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Adding trampoline batch attach support so it's possible to use
> > > batch mode to load tracing programs.
> > >
> > > Adding trampoline_attach_batch bool to struct bpf_object_open_opts.
> > > When set to true the bpf_object__attach_skeleton will try to load
> > > all tracing programs via batch mode.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > Assuming we go with the current kernel API for batch-attach, why can't
> > libbpf just detect kernel support for it and just use it always,
> > without requiring users to opt into anything?
>
> yea, it's rfc ;-) I wanted some simple usage of the
> interface so it's obvious how it works
>
> if we'll end up with some batch interface I agree
> we should use it as you suggested
>
> >
> > But I'm also confused a bit how this is supposed to be used with BPF
> > skeleton. You use case described in a cover letter (bpftrace glob
> > attach, right?) would have a single BPF program attached to many
> > different functions. While here you are trying to collect different
> > programs and attach each one to its respective kernel function. Do you
> > expect users to have hundreds of BPF programs in their skeletons? If
> > not, I don't really see why adding this complexity. What am I missing?
>
> AFAIU when you use trampoline program you declare the attach point
> at the load time, so you actually can't use same program for different
> kernel functions - which would be great speed up actually, because
> that's where the rest of the cycles in bpftrace is spent (in that cover
> letter example) - load/verifier check of all those programs
Ah, I see, you are right. And yes, I agree, it would be nice to not
have to clone the BPF program many times to attach to fentry/fexit, if
the program itself doesn't really change.
>
> it's different for kprobe where you hook single kprobe via multiple
> kprobe perf events to different kernel function
>
> >
> > Now it also seems weird to me for the kernel API to allow attaching
> > many-to-many BPF programs-to-attach points. One BPF program-to-many
> > attach points seems like a more sane and common requirement, no?
>
> right, but that's the consequence of what I wrote above
Well, maybe we should get rid of that limitation first ;)
>
> jirka
>
> >
> >
> > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 12 +++++++
> > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 1 +
> > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 5 ++-
> > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
> > > 5 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists