Re: [PATCH tip/master v3] kprobes: extable: Identify kprobes' insn-slots as kernel text area

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:06:04PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:54:02 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > How many entries should one expect on that list? I spend quite a bit of
> > time reducing the cost of is_module_text_address() a while back and see
> > that both ftrace (which actually needs this to be fast) and now
> > kprobes have linear list walks in here.
> 
> It depends on how many probes are used and optimized. However, in most
> cases, there should be one entry (unless user defines optimized probes
> over 32 on x86, from my experience, it is very rare case. :) )

OK, that's good :-)

> > I'm assuming the ftrace thing to be mostly empty, since I never saw it
> > on my benchmarks back then, but it is something Steve should look at I
> > suppose.
> > 
> > Similarly, the changelog here should include some talk about worst case
> > costs.
> 
> Would you have any good benchmark to measure it?

Not trivially so; what I did was cobble together a debugfs file that
measures the average of the PMI time in perf_sample_event_took(), and a
module that has a 10 deep callchain around a while(1) loop. Then perf
record with callchains for a few seconds.

Generating the callchain does the unwinder thing and ends up calling
is_kernel_address() lots.

The case I worked on was 0 modules vs 100+ modules in a distro build,
which was fairly obviously painful back then, since
is_module_text_address() used a linear lookup.

I'm not sure I still have all those bits, but I can dig around a bit if
you're interested.