Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Make eBPF programs output data to perf event
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>
References: <1435719455-91155-1-git-send-email-hekuang@huawei.com>
 <20150701054458.GN19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <559386D7.1020208@huawei.com>
 <20150701115825.GV19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5594A679.7010108@plumgrid.com>
CC: <rostedt@goodmis.org>, <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        <mingo@redhat.com>, <acme@redhat.com>, <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        <namhyung@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        pi3orama <pi3orama@163.com>
From: He Kuang <hekuang@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <5594B22F.8090500@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:38:23 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5594A679.7010108@plumgrid.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2604
Lines: 71


On 2015/7/2 10:48, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 7/1/15 4:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> But why create a separate trace buffer, it should go into the regular
>> perf buffer.
>
> +1
>
> I think
> +static char __percpu *perf_extra_trace_buf[PERF_NR_CONTEXTS];
> is redundant.
> It adds quite a bit of unnecessary complexity to the whole patch set.
>
> Also the call to bpf_output_sample() is not effective unless program
> returns 1. It's a confusing user interface.
>
> Also you cannot ever do:
>       BPF_FUNC_probe_read,
> +    BPF_FUNC_output_sample,
>       BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns,
> new functions must be added to the end.
>
> Why not just do:
> perf_trace_buf_prepare() + perf_trace_buf_submit() from the helper?
> No changes to current code.
> No need to call __get_data_size() and other overhead.
> The helper can be called multiple times from the same program.
> imo much cleaner.
>

Invoke perf_trace_buf_submit() will generate a second perf
event (header->type = PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE) entry which is
different from the event entry outputed by the orignial
kprobe. So the final result of the example in 00/00 patch may
like this:

   sample entry 1(from bpf_prog):
     comm timestamp1 generic_perform_write pmu_value=0x1234
                                                                                             
   sample entry 2(from original kprobe):
     comm timestamp2 generic_perform_write: (ffffffff81140b60)
                                                                                             
Compared with current implementation:
                                                                                             
   combined sample entry:
     comm timestamp generic_perform_write: (ffffffff81140b60) pmu_value=0x1234

The former two entries may be discontinuous as there are multiple
threads and kprobes to be recorded, and there's a chance that one
entry is missed but the other is recorded. What we need is the
pmu_value read when 'generic_perform_write' enters, the two
entries result is not intuitive enough and userspace tools have
to do the work to find and combine those two sample entries to
get the result.

Thank you.

> Also how about calling this helper:
> bpf_trace_buf_submit(void *stack_ptr, int size) ?
> bpf_output_sample, I think, is odd name. It's not a sample.
> May be other name?
>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/