Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-122824-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:21:40 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, song@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] perf, amd: support capturing LBR from software
 events
Message-ID: <ZgVSxPJ4Yi/UPgjb@gmail.com>
References: <20240319224206.1612000-1-andrii@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240319224206.1612000-1-andrii@kernel.org>


* Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> wrote:

> [0] added ability to capture LBR (Last Branch Records) on Intel CPUs
> from inside BPF program at pretty much any arbitrary point. This is
> extremely useful capability that allows to figure out otherwise
> hard-to-debug problems, because LBR is now available based on some
> application-defined conditions, not just hardware-supported events.
> 
> retsnoop ([1]) is one such tool that takes a huge advantage of this
> functionality and has proved to be an extremely useful tool in
> practice.
> 
> Now, AMD Zen4 CPUs got support for similar LBR functionality, but
> necessary wiring inside the kernel is not yet setup. This patch seeks to
> rectify this and follows a similar approach to the original patch [0]
> for Intel CPUs.
> 
> Given LBR can be set up to capture any indirect jumps, it's critical to
> minimize indirect jumps on the way to requesting LBR from BPF program,
> so we split amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all() into a wrapper with some generic
> conditions vs always-inlined __amd_pmu_lbr_disable() called directly
> from BPF subsystem (through perf_snapshot_branch_stack static call).
> 
> Now that it's possible to capture LBR on AMD CPU from BPF at arbitrary
> point, there is no reason to artificially limit this feature to sampling
> events. So corresponding check is removed. AFAIU, there is no
> correctness implications of doing this (and it was possible to bypass
> this check by just setting perf_event's sample_period to 1 anyways, so
> it doesn't guard all that much).
> 
> This was tested on AMD Bergamo CPU and worked well when utilized from
> the aforementioned retsnoop tool.
> 
>   [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210910183352.3151445-2-songliubraving@fb.com/
>   [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/events/amd/core.c   | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c    | 11 +----------
>  arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 11 +++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

Please do not queue these up in the BPF tree, all similar changes to 
perf code should go through the perf tree.

Thanks,

	Ingo