Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
CC:     lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
        "daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 perf, bpf-next 1/7] perf, bpf: Introduce
 PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v6 perf, bpf-next 1/7] perf, bpf: Introduce
 PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL
Thread-Index: AQHUqFCaPbT+UGXQnkaaX1wm9KrpVKWo0rKAgAAEoACAAAQiAIAACcSA
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:30:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CCB26BF8-9FF5-4BBF-84BE-878CF0D3882A@fb.com>
References: <20190109192111.130995-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20190109192111.130995-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20190110182403.GN22483@kernel.org>
 <064FBBA4-A0D0-4335-BCE7-902724CE2988@fb.com>
 <20190110185524.GO22483@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190110185524.GO22483@kernel.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <58DC48A9088BDE4E84A4126563AF9BB0@namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 303a2e92-baa6-4224-2d4d-08d67732102f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Jan 2019 19:30:22.2476
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR15MB1161
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-10_07:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> Em Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 06:40:37PM +0000, Song Liu escreveu:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org=
> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Em Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:21:05AM -0800, Song Liu escreveu:
>>>> For better performance analysis of dynamically JITed and loaded kernel
>>>> functions, such as BPF programs, this patch introduces
>>>> PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL, a new perf_event_type that exposes kernel symbol
>>>> register/unregister information to user space.
>>>>=20
>>>> The following data structure is used for PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL.
>>>>=20
>>>>   /*
>>>>    * struct {
>>>>    *      struct perf_event_header        header;
>>>>    *      u64                             addr;
>>>>    *      u32                             len;
>>>>    *      u16                             ksym_type;
>>>>    *      u16                             flags;
>>>>    *      char                            name[];
>>>>    *      struct sample_id                sample_id;
>>>>    * };
>>>>    */
>>>=20
>>> So, I couldn't find where this gets used, the intention here is just to
>>> add the interfaces and afterwards is that you will wire this up? I woul=
d
>>> like to test the whole shebang to see it working.
>>=20
>> I guess you meant PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT not being used?=20
>>=20
>> PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL is used by BPF in 3/7 and 5/7. I tested=20
>=20
> Oops, I didn't look at 3/7, just read its cset summary line and as it
> says:
>=20
> Subject: [PATCH v6 perf, bpf-next 3/7] perf, bpf: introduce PERF_RECORD_B=
PF_EVENT
>=20
> I didn't thought it was related, perhaps break it down into one that
> states that it is wiring up PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL, and at that point we
> could just test it, getting the notifications for new kallsyms related
> to BPF?

Good idea! I will split it into two patches as:

[3/8] perf, bpf: generate PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL for BPF program=20
[4/8] perf, bpf: introduce PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT

>=20
>> PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT with dump_trace. As we separate RECORD_KSYMBOL fro=
m
>> RECORD_BPF_EVENT, user space won't use BPF_EVENT until annotation suppor=
t. =20
>=20
> Right, so why not just introduce PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL, make it be used by
> tooling, etc, then move on to PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT?

I'd like to make sure we all agree on the new ABI for RECORD_KSYMBOL and=20
RECORD_BPF_EVENT. Multiple user space tools dependent on RECORD_BPF_EVENT,
for example, bcc and auditing. Finalizing RECORD_BPF_EVENT will unblock the=
=20
development of these tools. On perf side, it will take us quite some time=20
to finish annotation. Ideally, I don't want to block the development of=20
other tools for so long.=20

Thanks,
Song