Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "john fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Xu <dlxu@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs.
 user_prog
Thread-Topic: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs.
 user_prog
Thread-Index: AQHWZ+C4z/mDZUCS20yCUvtKcPb5ZakloXcAgAAxPICAAAZdgIACmfGAgABTZwCAADDfgIAA0VOAgAAb4IA=
Date:   Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:56:26 +0000
Message-ID: <31754A5F-AD12-44D2-B80A-36638684C2CE@fb.com>
References: <20200801084721.1812607-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20200801084721.1812607-6-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <CAEf4BzaP4TGF7kcmZRAKsy=oWPpFA6sUGFkctpGz-fPp+YuSOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DDCD362E-21D3-46BF-90A6-8F3221CBB54E@fb.com>
 <CAEf4BzY5RYMM6w8wn3qEB3AsuKWv-TMaD5NVFj=YqbCW4DLjqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7384B583-EE19-4045-AC72-B6FE87C187DD@fb.com>
 <CAEf4BzaiJnCu14AWougmxH80msGdOp4S8ZNmAiexMmtwUM_2Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AF9D0E8C-0AA5-4BE4-90F4-946FABAB63FD@fb.com>
 <20200805171639.tsqjmifd7eb3htou@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200805171639.tsqjmifd7eb3htou@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <D68AD05BCA122847AE9571BD170332E7@namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f7629e68-7da8-4f8b-cf77-08d839714158
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Aug 2020 18:56:26.2142
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: KjHBzitC0aO/X4BhUpUjXG4x69PZnfE7GR/8blbuvysutfX528ixqpPH3UAOKdOFTRWypzIdOfZM5BH4DZrQTA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR15MB2885
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687
 definitions=2020-08-05_14:2020-08-03,2020-08-05 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 mlxlogscore=999
 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0
 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0
 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008050147
X-FB-Internal: deliver
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 Aug 5, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail=
.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 04:47:30AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>=20
>> Being able to trigger BPF program on a different CPU could enable many
>> use cases and optimizations. The use case I am looking at is to access
>> perf_event and percpu maps on the target CPU. For example:
>> 	0. trigger the program
>> 	1. read perf_event on cpu x;
>> 	2. (optional) check which process is running on cpu x;
>> 	3. add perf_event value to percpu map(s) on cpu x.=20
>=20
> If the whole thing is about doing the above then I don't understand why n=
ew
> prog type is needed.

I was under the (probably wrong) impression that adding prog type is not
that big a deal.=20

> Can prog_test_run support existing BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE?

I haven't looked into all the details, but I bet this is possible.

> "enable many use cases" sounds vague. I don't think folks reading
> the patches can guess those "use cases".
> "Testing existing kprobe bpf progs" would sound more convincing to me.
> If the test_run framework can be extended to trigger kprobe with correct =
pt_regs.
> As part of it test_run would trigger on a given cpu with $ip pointing
> to some test fuction in test_run.c. For local test_run the stack trace
> would include bpf syscall chain. For IPI the stack trace would include
> the corresponding kernel pieces where top is our special test function.
> Sort of like pseudo kprobe where there is no actual kprobe logic,
> since kprobe prog doesn't care about mechanism. It needs correct
> pt_regs only as input context.
> The kprobe prog output (return value) has special meaning though,
> so may be kprobe prog type is not a good fit.
> Something like fentry/fexit may be better, since verifier check_return_co=
de()
> enforces 'return 0'. So their return value is effectively "void".
> Then prog_test_run would need to gain an ability to trigger
> fentry/fexit prog on a given cpu.

Maybe we add a new attach type for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, which is in=20
parallel with BPF_TRACE_FENTRY and BPF_TRACE_EXIT? Say BPF_TRACE_USER?=20
(Just realized I like this name :-D, it matches USDT...). Then we can=20
enable test_run for most (if not all) tracing programs, including
fentry/fexit.=20

Does this sound like a good plan?

Thanks,
Song