lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] sched/debug: add sched_update_nr_running tracepoint
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 10:14:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 12:23:10AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 05:05:47PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > > On 03/09/2019 16:43, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > > > The paper "The Linux Scheduler: a Decade of Wasted Cores" used several
> > > > custom data gathering points to better understand what was going on in
> > > > the scheduler.
> > > > Red Hat adapted one of them for the tracepoint framework and created a
> > > > tool to plot a heatmap of nr_running, where the sched_update_nr_running
> > > > tracepoint is being used for fine grained monitoring of scheduling
> > > > imbalance.
> > > > The tool is available from https://github.com/jirvoz/plot-nr-running.
> > > >
> > > > The best place for the tracepoints is inside the add/sub_nr_running,
> > > > which requires some shenanigans to make it work as they are defined
> > > > inside sched.h.
> > > > The tracepoints have to be included from sched.h, which means that
> > > > CREATE_TRACE_POINTS has to be defined for the whole header and this
> > > > might cause problems if tree-wide headers expose tracepoints in sched.h
> > > > dependencies, but I'd argue it's the other side's misuse of tracepoints.
> > > >
> > > > Moving the import sched.h line lower would require fixes in s390 and ppc
> > > > headers, because they don't include dependecies properly and expect
> > > > sched.h to do it, so it is simpler to keep sched.h there and
> > > > preventively undefine CREATE_TRACE_POINTS right after.
> > > >
> > > > Exports of the pelt tracepoints remain because they don't need to be
> > > > protected by CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and moving them closer would be
> > > > unsightly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Pure trace events are frowned upon in scheduler world, try going with
> > > trace points.
>
> Quite; I hate tracepoints for the API constraints they impose. Been
> bitten by that, not want to ever have to deal with that again.

Your NACKs on trace patches over the years have spoken out loud about this
point ;-)

> > > Qais did something very similar recently:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190604111459.2862-1-qais.yousef@arm.com/
> > >
> > > You'll have to implement the associated trace events in a module, which
> > > lets you define your own event format and doesn't form an ABI :).
> >
> > Is that really true? eBPF programs loaded from userspace can access
> > tracepoints through BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT_OPEN, which is UAPI:
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h#L103
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion about considering tracepoints as ABI / API or
> > not, but just want to get the facts straight :)
>
> eBPF can access all sorts of kernel internals; if we were to deem eBPF
> and API we'd be fscked.

True. However, for kprobes-based BPF program - it does check for kernel
version to ensure that the BPF program is built against the right kernel
version (in order to ensure the program is built against the right set of
kernel headers). If it is not, then BPF refuses to load the program.

But, to your point bpf_probe_read() can away access kernel memory and
assume structure layouts; so I guess a badly written bpf program can still do
all sorts of ABI-unstable things.

Good to know that the raw tracepoint being Ok since it is non-ABI; is where
we draw the line.

thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-04 15:12    [W:0.117 / U:1.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site