Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] Add ftrace direct call for arm64

[Google]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:49:38 +0200
Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 1:32 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:55:06 +0200
> > Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Mark finished an implementation of his per-callsite-ops and min-args
> > > branches (meaning that we can now skip the expensive ftrace's saving
> > > of all registers and iteration over all ops if only one is attached)
> > > - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64-ftrace-call-ops-20221017
> > >
> > > And Masami wrote similar patches to what I had originally done to
> > > fprobe in my branch:
> > > - https://github.com/mhiramat/linux/commits/kprobes/fprobe-update
> > >
> > > So I could rebase my previous "bpf on fprobe" branch on top of these:
> > > (as before, it's just good enough for benchmarking and to give a
> > > general sense of the idea, not for a thorough code review):
> > > - https://github.com/FlorentRevest/linux/commits/fprobe-min-args-3
> > >
> > > And I could run the benchmarks against my rpi4. I have different
> > > baseline numbers as Xu so I ran everything again and tried to keep the
> > > format the same. "indirect call" refers to my branch I just linked and
> > > "direct call" refers to the series this is a reply to (Xu's work)
> >
> > Thanks for sharing the measurement results. Yes, fprobes/rethook
> > implementation is just porting the kretprobes implementation, thus
> > it may not be so optimized.
> >
> > BTW, I remember Wuqiang's patch for kretprobes.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210830173324.32507-1-wuqiang.matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> 
> Oh that's a great idea, thanks for pointing it out Masami!
> 
> > This is for the scalability fixing, but may possible to improve
> > the performance a bit. It is not hard to port to the recent kernel.
> > Can you try it too?
> 
> I rebased it on my branch
> https://github.com/FlorentRevest/linux/commits/fprobe-min-args-3
> 
> And I got measurements again. Unfortunately it looks like this does not help :/
> 
> New benchmark results: https://paste.debian.net/1257856/
> New perf report: https://paste.debian.net/1257859/

Hmm, OK. That is only for the scalability.

> 
> The fprobe based approach is still significantly slower than the
> direct call approach.
> 
> > Anyway, eventually, I would like to remove the current kretprobe
> > based implementation and unify fexit hook with function-graph
> > tracer. It should make more better perfromance on it.
> 
> That makes sense. :) How do you imagine the unified solution ?
> Would both the fgraph and fprobe APIs keep existing but under the hood
> one would be implemented on the other ? (or would one be gone ?) Would
> we replace the rethook freelist with the function graph's per-task
> shadow stacks ? (or the other way around ?))

Yes, that's right. As far as using a global object pool, there must
be a performance bottleneck to pick up an object and returning the
object to the pool. Per-CPU pool may give a better performance but
more complicated to balance pools. Per-task shadow stack will solve it.
So I plan to expand fgraph API and use it in fprobe instead of rethook.
(I planned to re-implement rethook, but I realized that it has more issue
than I thought.)

> > > Note that I can't really make sense of the perf report with indirect
> > > calls. it always reports it spent 12% of the time in
> > > rethook_trampoline_handler but I verified with both a WARN in that
> > > function and a breakpoint with a debugger, this function does *not*
> > > get called when running this "bench trig-fentry" benchmark. Also it
> > > wouldn't make sense for fprobe_handler to call it so I'm quite
> > > confused why perf would report this call and such a long time spent
> > > there. Anyone know what I could be missing here ?
> 
> I made slight progress on this. If I put the vmlinux file in the cwd
> where I run perf report, the reports no longer contain references to
> rethook_trampoline_handler. Instead, they have a few
> 0xffff800008xxxxxx addresses under fprobe_handler. (like in the
> pastebin I just linked)
> 
> It's still pretty weird because that range is the vmalloc area on
> arm64 and I don't understand why anything under fprobe_handler would
> execute there. However, I'm also definitely sure that these 12% are
> actually spent getting buffers from the rethook memory pool because if
> I replace rethook_try_get and rethook_recycle calls with the usage of
> a dummy static bss buffer (for the sake of benchmarking the
> "theoretical best case scenario") these weird perf report traces are
> gone and the 12% are saved. https://paste.debian.net/1257862/

Yeah, I understand that. Rethook (and kretprobes) is not designed
for such heavy workload.

> This is why I would be interested in seeing rethook's memory pool
> reimplemented on top of something like
> https://lwn.net/Articles/788923/ If we get closer to the performance
> of the the theoretical best case scenario where getting a blob of
> memory is ~free (and I think it could be the case with a per task
> shadow stack like fgraph's), then a bpf on fprobe implementation would
> start to approach the performances of a direct called trampoline on
> arm64: https://paste.debian.net/1257863/

OK, I think we are on the same page and same direction.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>