| Message ID | 20240418190909.704286-2-andrii@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v4,1/2] ftrace: make extra rcu_is_watching() validation check optional | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:09:09PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating > that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function entry. > > One notable exception when we force rcu_is_watching() check is > CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE=y case, in which case kretprobes will use > old-style int3-based workflow instead of relying on ftrace, making RCU > watching check important to validate. > > This further (in addition to improvements in the previous patch) > improves BPF multi-kretprobe (which rely on rethook) runtime throughput > by 2.3%, according to BPF benchmarks ([0]). > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzauQ2WKMjZdc9s0rBWa01BYbgwHN6aNDXQSHYia47pQ-w@mail.gmail.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > --- > kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > index fa03094e9e69..a974605ad7a5 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > if (unlikely(!handler)) > return NULL; > > +#if defined(CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING) || defined(CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE) > /* > * This expects the caller will set up a rethook on a function entry. > * When the function returns, the rethook will eventually be reclaimed > @@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > */ > if (unlikely(!rcu_is_watching())) > return NULL; > +#endif > > return (struct rethook_node *)objpool_pop(&rh->pool); > } > -- > 2.43.0 >
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:09:09 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> wrote: > Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating > that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function entry. > > One notable exception when we force rcu_is_watching() check is > CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE=y case, in which case kretprobes will use > old-style int3-based workflow instead of relying on ftrace, making RCU > watching check important to validate. > > This further (in addition to improvements in the previous patch) > improves BPF multi-kretprobe (which rely on rethook) runtime throughput > by 2.3%, according to BPF benchmarks ([0]). > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzauQ2WKMjZdc9s0rBWa01BYbgwHN6aNDXQSHYia47pQ-w@mail.gmail.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Thanks for update! This looks good to me. Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> Thanks, > --- > kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > index fa03094e9e69..a974605ad7a5 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > if (unlikely(!handler)) > return NULL; > > +#if defined(CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING) || defined(CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE) > /* > * This expects the caller will set up a rethook on a function entry. > * When the function returns, the rethook will eventually be reclaimed > @@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > */ > if (unlikely(!rcu_is_watching())) > return NULL; > +#endif > > return (struct rethook_node *)objpool_pop(&rh->pool); > } > -- > 2.43.0 >
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:00 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:09:09 -0700 > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating > > that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function entry. > > > > One notable exception when we force rcu_is_watching() check is > > CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE=y case, in which case kretprobes will use > > old-style int3-based workflow instead of relying on ftrace, making RCU > > watching check important to validate. > > > > This further (in addition to improvements in the previous patch) > > improves BPF multi-kretprobe (which rely on rethook) runtime throughput > > by 2.3%, according to BPF benchmarks ([0]). > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzauQ2WKMjZdc9s0rBWa01BYbgwHN6aNDXQSHYia47pQ-w@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > > > Thanks for update! This looks good to me. Thanks, Masami! Will you take it through your tree, or you'd like to route it through bpf-next? > > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > Thanks, > > > --- > > kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > index fa03094e9e69..a974605ad7a5 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > > if (unlikely(!handler)) > > return NULL; > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING) || defined(CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE) > > /* > > * This expects the caller will set up a rethook on a function entry. > > * When the function returns, the rethook will eventually be reclaimed > > @@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > > */ > > if (unlikely(!rcu_is_watching())) > > return NULL; > > +#endif > > > > return (struct rethook_node *)objpool_pop(&rh->pool); > > } > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > > > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:59:09 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:00 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:09:09 -0700 > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating > > > that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function entry. > > > > > > One notable exception when we force rcu_is_watching() check is > > > CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE=y case, in which case kretprobes will use > > > old-style int3-based workflow instead of relying on ftrace, making RCU > > > watching check important to validate. > > > > > > This further (in addition to improvements in the previous patch) > > > improves BPF multi-kretprobe (which rely on rethook) runtime throughput > > > by 2.3%, according to BPF benchmarks ([0]). > > > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzauQ2WKMjZdc9s0rBWa01BYbgwHN6aNDXQSHYia47pQ-w@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > > > > > > Thanks for update! This looks good to me. > > Thanks, Masami! Will you take it through your tree, or you'd like to > route it through bpf-next? OK, let me take it through linux-trace tree. Thank you! > > > > > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > --- > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > > index fa03094e9e69..a974605ad7a5 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > > > if (unlikely(!handler)) > > > return NULL; > > > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING) || defined(CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE) > > > /* > > > * This expects the caller will set up a rethook on a function entry. > > > * When the function returns, the rethook will eventually be reclaimed > > > @@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) > > > */ > > > if (unlikely(!rcu_is_watching())) > > > return NULL; > > > +#endif > > > > > > return (struct rethook_node *)objpool_pop(&rh->pool); > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.43.0 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c index fa03094e9e69..a974605ad7a5 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) if (unlikely(!handler)) return NULL; +#if defined(CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING) || defined(CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE) /* * This expects the caller will set up a rethook on a function entry. * When the function returns, the rethook will eventually be reclaimed @@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh) */ if (unlikely(!rcu_is_watching())) return NULL; +#endif return (struct rethook_node *)objpool_pop(&rh->pool); }
Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function entry. One notable exception when we force rcu_is_watching() check is CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE=y case, in which case kretprobes will use old-style int3-based workflow instead of relying on ftrace, making RCU watching check important to validate. This further (in addition to improvements in the previous patch) improves BPF multi-kretprobe (which rely on rethook) runtime throughput by 2.3%, according to BPF benchmarks ([0]). [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzauQ2WKMjZdc9s0rBWa01BYbgwHN6aNDXQSHYia47pQ-w@mail.gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> --- kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)