LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: Song Liu <>
Cc: "open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)" 
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Kernel Team <>,
	Kan Liang <>,
	Like Xu <>,
	Alexey Budankov <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bpf: lbr: enable reading LBR from tracing bpf programs
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:57:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 04:46:32PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:

> > Urgghhh.. I so really hate BPF specials like this.
> I don't really like this design either. But it does show that LBR can be
> very useful in non-PMI scenario. 
> > Also, the PMI race
> > you describe is because you're doing abysmal layer violations. If you'd
> > have used perf_pmu_disable() that wouldn't have been a problem.
> Do you mean instead of disable/enable lbr, we disable/enable the whole 
> pmu? 

Yep, that way you're serialized against PMIs. It's what all of the perf
core does.

> > I'd much rather see a generic 'fake/inject' PMI facility, something that
> > works across the board and isn't tied to x86/intel.
> How would that work? Do we have a function to trigger PMI from software, 
> and then gather the LBR data after the PMI? This does sound like a much
> cleaner solution. Where can I find code examples that fake/inject PMI?

We don't yet have anything like it; but it would look a little like:

void perf_inject_event(struct perf_event *event, struct pt_regs *regs)
	struct perf_sample_data data;
	struct pmu *pmu = event->pmu;
	unsigned long flags;


	perf_sample_data_init(&data, 0, 0);
	 * XXX or a variant with more _ that starts at the overflow
	 * handler...
	__perf_event_overflow(event, 0, &data, regs);


But please consider carefully, I haven't...

> There is another limitation right now: we need to enable LBR with a 
> hardware perf event (cycles, etc.). However, unless we use the event for 
> something else, it wastes a hardware counter. So I was thinking to allow
> software event, i.e. dummy event, to enable LBR. Does this idea sound 
> sane to you?

We have a VLBR dummy event, but I'm not sure it does exactly as you
want. However, we should also consider Power, which also has the branch
stack feature.

You can't really make a software event with LBR on, because then it
wouldn't be a software event anymore. You'll need some hybrid like
thing, which will be yuck and I suspect it needs arch support one way or
the other :/

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-19 11:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-18  1:29 Song Liu
2021-08-18  9:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-18 16:46   ` Song Liu
2021-08-19 11:57     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-08-19 16:46       ` Song Liu
2021-08-19 18:06         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-19 18:22           ` Song Liu
2021-08-19 18:27             ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-19 18:45               ` Song Liu
2021-08-20  7:33               ` Song Liu

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC] bpf: lbr: enable reading LBR from tracing bpf programs' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).