Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39059C433EF for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 22:48:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BC3611CB for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 22:48:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232672AbhKRWva (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2021 17:51:30 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45960 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229580AbhKRWv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2021 17:51:27 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C50C061574; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id v138so22642340ybb.8; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:48:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1A4I+IvpMnd1wIeiEMqnfEVMSvtyrpGJNH7+WyrCADg=; b=XPMPejQ4hp2jZEecf8S1x6d/hnxHl1myxWtrkVVOmM+/h4+9WyAkpMOtdPU9tZyJ7u 0WQb62j2C7OKPp0I/2a4UsVmQZtuJk4yTj3nvvwt9ev4r6FDADcLdjAuFAjdWElPmS53 pMOkWcLnonOZPjbbWCI6pd3gEnvmjc3gnmEzwZYm6xQa/TmseBChoCc41alLALVwIczz JIu/gO76XnEI4aKW6Bfpq/CrJUbN+n680utr5GPjKzSx9Ond368KrPs4S90e0O/IEg+T OSbRoMU4MbjXKUbeBW1CSH9eihXsz9EAfmncPfGu0xzn2uXiyek9VIQ+kiUfRvtWMWRI qksg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1A4I+IvpMnd1wIeiEMqnfEVMSvtyrpGJNH7+WyrCADg=; b=Em7GTfiWb73eyGHGxTgeG5WKTFtQSyTUBRFaYQLBBRRCPkrv1s+ZoDpxyOXbhdCm2W mAHwRlJzw57GTxUynLaxdyWG/4p9D0+r8D7sT6Dzwu8Q3j1iW6tKQcVCbfDX646HFEB1 BP0ROt2+9ddHLUAJR1Va8tRUMyKNQp//sTmWrtImGA4QdzwkWYcPCP59jrnoBNVqR/Qg WIxsdlSqwpZUNFCV8PZeRVAQdbDeuuRyqcuGEBZbsVHGV6bpPJhz47XLcWEWug4KmXfD 1+kdRlkB6OFEV2bQ8my0pPcQjxMzHp940ZG356g2mUsnDJ00ZU84CTxRo9MwKm2Zp1UX xmwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531uzkxT8s4RaG/XzacYFsAkr7JFtOlWMpd9rzdtjBXEgLpQZnuO mVr+sG0L1KUJkdKbHsDs4d+XVGBdG+YpWirtYtLS3r4Q X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUgfAuSgKLD26HnNHOrJPhk6SCNwQM2Dn26pOeI2qdLecIAvpsaXTS1kklB/ODwGB376Xm1xXl2h4EKAoY5X8= X-Received: by 2002:a25:d187:: with SMTP id i129mr31194995ybg.2.1637275705946; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:48:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211118130507.170154-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20211118130507.170154-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:48:14 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Remove config check to enable bpf support for branch records To: Kajol Jain Cc: bpf , open list , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Peter Ziljstra , Song Liu , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin Lau , Yonghong Song , john fastabend , "David S. Miller" , KP Singh , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Jakub Kicinski , maddy@linux.ibm.com, atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "linux-perf-use." , rnsastry@linux.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 5:10 AM Kajol Jain wrote: > > Branch data available to bpf programs can be very useful to get > stack traces out of userspace application. > > Commit fff7b64355ea ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") > added bpf support to capture branch records in x86. Enable this feature > for other architectures as well by removing check specific to x86. > Incase any platform didn't support branch stack, it will return with > -EINVAL. > > Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine with branch stacks > support. > > Before this patch changes: > [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches > #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:FAIL > #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK > #88 perf_branches:FAIL > Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED > > After this patch changes: > [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches > #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:OK > #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK > #88 perf_branches:OK > Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which doesn't > support branch stack > > After this patch changes: > [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches > #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:SKIP > #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK > #88 perf_branches:OK > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Fixes: fff7b64355eac ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra > Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain > --- > > Tested this patch changes on power9 machine using selftest > 'perf branches' which is added in commit 67306f84ca78 ("selftests/bpf: > Add bpf_read_branch_records()") > > Changelog: > v1 -> v2 > - Inorder to add bpf support to capture branch record in > powerpc, rather then adding config for powerpc, entirely > remove config check from bpf_read_branch_records function > as suggested by Peter Zijlstra what will be returned for architectures that don't support branch records? Will it be zero instead of -ENOENT? > > - Link to the v1 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/14/434 > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > index 7396488793ff..5e445985c6b4 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > @@ -1402,9 +1402,6 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_prog_read_value_proto = { > BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, > void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags) > { > -#ifndef CONFIG_X86 > - return -ENOENT; > -#else > static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry); > struct perf_branch_stack *br_stack = ctx->data->br_stack; > u32 to_copy; > @@ -1425,7 +1422,6 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, > memcpy(buf, br_stack->entries, to_copy); > > return to_copy; > -#endif > } > > static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_read_branch_records_proto = { > -- > 2.27.0 >