LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Qi Liu <liuqi115@huawei.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, will@kernel.org, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, f.fangjian@huawei.com, Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: kprobe: Enable OPTPROBE for arm64 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:12:04 +1200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4ww6wLBHw++qE_29ozC50XE8qc4T5waxn78UHRHjUFunQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210825111339.dcf494abb0c27508d2d1f645@kernel.org> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:15 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:50:01 +0100 > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have a bunch of comments below. > > > > At a high-level, I'm not all that keen on adding yet another set of > > trampolines, especially given we have constraints on how we can branch > > to them which render this not that useful in common configurations (e.g. > > where KASLR and module randomization is enabled). > > Yes, that makes kprobe jump optimization hard to implement on > RISC architecture in general. (x86 has 32bit offset jump instruction) > To solve this issue, something like "intermedate jump area" is needed > for each module. (Or, overwriting multiple instructions) > > > > > So importantly, do we actually need this? I don't think the sampel is > > that compelling since we can already use ftrace to measure function > > latencies. > > That depends on what you use it for, as you may know, kprobes allows > you to put the probes on function body (and inlined function), > on the other hand, ftrace can put only on the entry of the function. > I guess Qi may want to use it for improving performance of BPF. > > (BTW, as far as I know, Jisheng Zhang once tried to implement > kprobe on ftrace, that may be more helpful in this example. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20191225172625.69811b3e@xhacker.debian/T/#m23a7aa55d32d140ee6a92102534446cfd4a43007 > I will pick them up again) > > > > > If we do need this, I think we need to do some more substantial rework > > to address those branch range limitations. I know that we could permit > > arbitrary branching if we expand the ftrace-with-regs callsites to ~6 > > instructions, but that interacts rather poorly with stacktracing and > > will make the kernel a bit bigger. > > Would you mean we reuse the ftrace-with-regs callsites for kprobes? > > arm32 avoids this limitation partially with reserved text pages > for trampoline in the kernel. But I think that is also a partial > solution. It may not work with module randomization at least on > arm64. > > On arm64, I think there are several way to solve it. > > - Add optprobe trampoline buffer for each module. > This is the simplest way to solve this issue, but requires some > pages to be added to each module (and kernel). > > - Add intermediate trampoline area for each module. (2-stage jump) > This jumps into an intermediate trampoline entry, save a partial > registers and jump the actual trampoline using that register. > This can reduce the size of trampoline buffer for each module. > > - Replace multiple instructions with the above intermediate jump > code. (single jump, but replace multiple instructions) > This requires to emulate multiple instructions and also the > kprobe must decode the instructions in the target function to > identify the replaced instructions are in one basic block. But > no need to add intermediate trampoline area (page). > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:33:36PM +0800, Qi Liu wrote: > > > This patch introduce optprobe for ARM64. In optprobe, probed > > > instruction is replaced by a branch instruction to detour > > > buffer. Detour buffer contains trampoline code and a call to > > > optimized_callback(). optimized_callback() calls opt_pre_handler() > > > to execute kprobe handler. > > > > > > Performance of optprobe on Hip08 platform is test using kprobe > > > example module[1] to analyze the latency of a kernel function, > > > and here is the result: > > > > > > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/samples/kprobes/kretprobe_example.c > > > > > > kprobe before optimized: > > > [280709.846380] do_empty returned 0 and took 1530 ns to execute > > > [280709.852057] do_empty returned 0 and took 550 ns to execute > > > [280709.857631] do_empty returned 0 and took 440 ns to execute > > > [280709.863215] do_empty returned 0 and took 380 ns to execute > > > [280709.868787] do_empty returned 0 and took 360 ns to execute > > > [280709.874362] do_empty returned 0 and took 340 ns to execute > > > [280709.879936] do_empty returned 0 and took 320 ns to execute > > > [280709.885505] do_empty returned 0 and took 300 ns to execute > > > [280709.891075] do_empty returned 0 and took 280 ns to execute > > > [280709.896646] do_empty returned 0 and took 290 ns to execute > > > [280709.902220] do_empty returned 0 and took 290 ns to execute > > > [280709.907807] do_empty returned 0 and took 290 ns to execute > > > > > > optprobe: > > > [ 2965.964572] do_empty returned 0 and took 90 ns to execute > > > [ 2965.969952] do_empty returned 0 and took 80 ns to execute > > > [ 2965.975332] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2965.980714] do_empty returned 0 and took 60 ns to execute > > > [ 2965.986128] do_empty returned 0 and took 80 ns to execute > > > [ 2965.991507] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2965.996884] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2966.002262] do_empty returned 0 and took 80 ns to execute > > > [ 2966.007642] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2966.013020] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2966.018400] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2966.023779] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > [ 2966.029158] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute > > > > Do we have any examples of where this latency matters in practice? > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qi Liu <liuqi115@huawei.com> > > > > > > Note: > > > To guarantee the offset between probe point and kprobe pre_handler > > > is smaller than 128MiB, users should set > > > CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL=N or set nokaslr in command line, or > > > optprobe will not work and fall back to normal kprobe. > > > > Hmm... I don't think that's something we want to recommend, and > > certainly distros *should* use KASLR and > > CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL. > > > > What happens with defconfig? Do we always get the fallback behaviour? > > Yes, in such case, it fails back to normal kprobe. just one minor comment. as Qi pointed out before, bootargs nokaslr will make kernel built by defconfig use optprobe: nokaslr [KNL] When CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is set, this disables kernel and module base offset ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization). in lab, while security is not a concern as online, it would be a good option. > Anyway, optprobe is a background optimization. User can not specify > which kprobe is optimized. That is automatically done. > > Thank you, > > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Thanks barry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-25 3:12 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-18 7:33 [PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Enable OPTPROBE for arm64 Qi Liu 2021-08-18 7:33 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] Make save_all_base_regs and restore_all_base_regs as common macro Qi Liu 2021-08-18 7:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: kprobe: Enable OPTPROBE for arm64 Qi Liu 2021-08-18 16:27 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2021-08-24 10:50 ` Mark Rutland 2021-08-24 11:50 ` Barry Song 2021-08-24 12:11 ` Mark Rutland 2021-08-24 12:42 ` Barry Song 2021-08-25 2:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2021-08-25 3:12 ` Barry Song [this message] 2021-09-07 3:14 ` liuqi (BA) 2021-11-26 10:31 ` liuqi (BA) 2021-11-27 12:23 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2021-11-29 1:40 ` liuqi (BA) 2021-11-29 5:00 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2021-11-29 6:50 ` liuqi (BA) 2021-11-29 14:35 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2021-11-30 6:48 ` liuqi (BA) 2021-12-01 1:50 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2021-12-01 2:55 ` liuqi (BA)
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CAGsJ_4ww6wLBHw++qE_29ozC50XE8qc4T5waxn78UHRHjUFunQ@mail.gmail.com \ --to=21cnbao@gmail.com \ --cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=f.fangjian@huawei.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \ --cc=liuqi115@huawei.com \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \ --cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \ --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \ --cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).