Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs. user_prog

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 06:56:26PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Aug 5, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 04:47:30AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> >> 
> >> Being able to trigger BPF program on a different CPU could enable many
> >> use cases and optimizations. The use case I am looking at is to access
> >> perf_event and percpu maps on the target CPU. For example:
> >> 	0. trigger the program
> >> 	1. read perf_event on cpu x;
> >> 	2. (optional) check which process is running on cpu x;
> >> 	3. add perf_event value to percpu map(s) on cpu x. 
> > 
> > If the whole thing is about doing the above then I don't understand why new
> > prog type is needed.
> 
> I was under the (probably wrong) impression that adding prog type is not
> that big a deal. 

Not a big deal when it's necessary.

> > Can prog_test_run support existing BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE?
> 
> I haven't looked into all the details, but I bet this is possible.
> 
> > "enable many use cases" sounds vague. I don't think folks reading
> > the patches can guess those "use cases".
> > "Testing existing kprobe bpf progs" would sound more convincing to me.
> > If the test_run framework can be extended to trigger kprobe with correct pt_regs.
> > As part of it test_run would trigger on a given cpu with $ip pointing
> > to some test fuction in test_run.c. For local test_run the stack trace
> > would include bpf syscall chain. For IPI the stack trace would include
> > the corresponding kernel pieces where top is our special test function.
> > Sort of like pseudo kprobe where there is no actual kprobe logic,
> > since kprobe prog doesn't care about mechanism. It needs correct
> > pt_regs only as input context.
> > The kprobe prog output (return value) has special meaning though,
> > so may be kprobe prog type is not a good fit.
> > Something like fentry/fexit may be better, since verifier check_return_code()
> > enforces 'return 0'. So their return value is effectively "void".
> > Then prog_test_run would need to gain an ability to trigger
> > fentry/fexit prog on a given cpu.
> 
> Maybe we add a new attach type for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, which is in 
> parallel with BPF_TRACE_FENTRY and BPF_TRACE_EXIT? Say BPF_TRACE_USER? 
> (Just realized I like this name :-D, it matches USDT...). Then we can 
> enable test_run for most (if not all) tracing programs, including
> fentry/fexit. 

Why new hook? Why prog_test_run cmd cannot be made to work
BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING when it's loaded as BPF_TRACE_FENTRY and attach_btf_id
points to special test function?
The test_run cmd will trigger execution of that special function.
Devil is in details of course. How attach, trampoline, etc going to work
that all needs to be figured out. Parallel test_run cmd ideally shouldn't
affect each other, etc.