Re: [RFC perf,bpf 1/5] perf, bpf: Introduce PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT

[Song Liu]

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 12:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:52:42PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>> For better performance analysis of BPF programs, this patch introduces
>> PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT, a new perf_event_type that exposes BPF program
>> load/unload information to user space.
>> 
>>        /*
>>         * Record different types of bpf events:
>>         *   enum perf_bpf_event_type {
>>         *      PERF_BPF_EVENT_UNKNOWN          = 0,
>>         *      PERF_BPF_EVENT_PROG_LOAD        = 1,
>>         *      PERF_BPF_EVENT_PROG_UNLOAD      = 2,
>>         *   };
>>         *
>>         * struct {
>>         *      struct perf_event_header header;
>>         *      u16 type;
>>         *      u16 flags;
>>         *      u32 id;  // prog_id or map_id
>>         * };
>>         */
>>        PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT                   = 17,
>> 
>> PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT contains minimal information about the BPF program.
>> Perf utility (or other user space tools) should listen to this event and
>> fetch more details about the event via BPF syscalls
>> (BPF_PROG_GET_FD_BY_ID, BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD, etc.).
> 
> Why !? You're failing to explain why it cannot provide the full
> information there.

Aha, I missed this part. I will add the following to next version. Please
let me know if anything is not clear.

Thanks,
Song



This design decision is picked for the following reasons. First, BPF 
programs could be loaded-and-jited and/or unloaded before/during/after 
perf-record run. Once a BPF programs is unloaded, it is impossible to 
recover details of the program. It is impossible to provide the 
information through a simple key (like the build ID). Second, BPF prog
annotation is under fast developments. Multiple informations will be 
added to bpf_prog_info in the next few releases. Including all the
information of a BPF program in the perf ring buffer requires frequent 
changes to the perf ABI, and thus makes it very difficult to manage 
compatibility of perf utility. 

For more information on this topic, please refer to the following 
discussions: 

    https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg524230.html