diff mbox series

[v3,2/2] rethook: honor CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING in rethook_try_get()

Message ID 20240403220328.455786-2-andrii@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Masami Hiramatsu
Headers show
Series [v3,1/2] ftrace: make extra rcu_is_watching() validation check optional | expand

Commit Message

Andrii Nakryiko April 3, 2024, 10:03 p.m. UTC
Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating
that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function entry.

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(+)

Comments

Masami Hiramatsu (Google) April 9, 2024, 10:48 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed,  3 Apr 2024 15:03:28 -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.
> 
> 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/
> 

Hi Andrii,

Can you make this part depends on !KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE (with this
option, kretprobes can be used without ftrace, but with original int3) ?
This option should be set N on production system because of safety,
just for testing raw kretprobes.

Thank you,

> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@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..15b8aa4048d9 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;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING
>  	/*
>  	 * 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
>
Andrii Nakryiko April 18, 2024, 6:41 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 3:48 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed,  3 Apr 2024 15:03:28 -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.
> >
> > 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/
> >
>
> Hi Andrii,
>
> Can you make this part depends on !KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE (with this
> option, kretprobes can be used without ftrace, but with original int3) ?

Sorry for the late response, I was out on vacation. Makes sense about
KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE, I went with this condition:

#if defined(CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING) ||
defined(CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS_ON_NOTRACE)

Will send an updated revision shortly.

> This option should be set N on production system because of safety,
> just for testing raw kretprobes.
>
> Thank you,
>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@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..15b8aa4048d9 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;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING
> >       /*
> >        * 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 mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c
index fa03094e9e69..15b8aa4048d9 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;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING
 	/*
 	 * 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);
 }