Re: [RFC] store function address in BTF

On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 02:22:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:06 PM Jiri Olsa [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:17:39AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:42 AM Jiri Olsa [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

hi,
I'm hitting performance issue and soft lock ups with the new version
of the patchset and the reason seems to be kallsyms lookup that we
need to do for each btf id we want to attach

I tried to change kallsyms_lookup_name linear search into rbtree search,
but it has its own pitfalls like duplicate function names and it still
seems not to be fast enough when you want to attach like 30k functions

How not fast enough is it exactly? How long does it take?

30k functions takes 75 seconds for me, it's loop calling bpf_check_attach_target

getting soft lock up messages:

krava33 login: [  168.896671] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 26s! [bpftrace:1087]

That's without RB tree right? I was curious about the case of you
converting kallsyms to RB tree and it still being slow. Can't imagine
30k queries against RB tree with ~160k kallsyms taking 75 seconds.

yep, that's the standard kallsyms lookup api

I need to make some adjustment for rbtree kalsyms code, I think I found
a bug in there, so the numbers are probably better as you suggest

But as I said, why not map BTF IDs into function names, sort function
names, and then pass over kallsyms once, doing binary search into a
sorted array of requested function names and then recording addr for
each. Then check that you found addresses for all functions (it also
leaves a question of what to do when we have multiple matching
functions, but it's a problem with any approach). If everything checks
out, you have a nice btf id -> func name -> func addr mapping. It's
O(N log(M)), which sounds like it shouldn't be slow. Definitely not
multiple seconds slow.

ok, now that's clear to me, thanks for these details

quoted

quoted

quoted

so I wonder we could 'fix this' by storing function address in BTF,
which would cut kallsyms lookup completely, because it'd be done in
compile time

my first thought was to add extra BTF section for that, after discussion
with Arnaldo perhaps we could be able to store extra 8 bytes after
BTF_KIND_FUNC record, using one of the 'unused' bits in btf_type to
indicate that? or new BTF_KIND_FUNC2 type?

thoughts?

I'm strongly against this, because (besides the BTF bloat reason) we
need similar mass attachment functionality for kprobe/kretprobe and
that one won't be relying on BTF FUNCs, so I think it's better to
stick to the same mechanism for figuring out the address of the
function.

ok

quoted

If RB tree is not feasible, we can do a linear search over unsorted
kallsyms and do binary search over sorted function names (derived from
BTF IDs). That would be O(Nlog(M)), where N is number of ksyms, M is
number of BTF IDs/functions-to-be-attached-to. If we did have an RB
tree for kallsyms (is it hard to support duplicates? why?) it could be
even faster O(Mlog(N)).

I had issues with generic kallsyms rbtree in the post some time ago,
I'll revisit it to check on details.. but having the tree with just
btf id functions might clear that.. I'll check

That's not what I'm proposing. See above. Please let me know if
something is not clear before going all in for RB tree implementation
:)


But while we are on topic, do you think (with ftrace changes you are
doing) it would be hard to support multi-attach for
kprobes/kretprobes? We now have bpf_link interface for attaching
kprobes, so API can be pretty aligned with fentry/fexit, except
instead of btf IDs we'd need to pass array of pointers of C strings, I
suppose.

hum, I think kprobe/kretprobe is made of perf event (kprobe/kretprobe
pmus), then you pass event fd and program fd to bpf link syscall,
and it attaches bpf program to that perf event

so perhaps the user interface would be array of perf events fds and prog fd

also I think you can have just one probe for function, so we will not need
to share kprobes for multiple users like we need for trampolines, so the
attach logic will be simple

jirka

quoted

thanks,
jirka

quoted

quoted

thanks,
jirka