ftrace: Add separate handler for ftrace:function event
Subsystems (2)
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH 1/2 ftrace: Add separate handler for ftrace:function event
Having following commands running concurently:
# perf record -e ftrace:function -a -o krava.data sleep 10 # perf record -e ftrace:function --filter 'ip == SyS_read' ls
will endup in the latter one failing on the filter rules and store all functions (in perf.data) as instructed by the first record instead of just SyS_read records.
The reason is that we don't check the ftrace_ops that triggered the event with event's ftrace_ops. Hence once running together the event from latter perf will get all the data of the event from the first one.
Fixing this by having separate handler for ftrace:function event that actualy checks ftrace_ops against event.
--- include/linux/perf_event.h | 2 ++ kernel/events/core.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c | 3 +-- 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
include/linux/perf_event.h +2 -0
@@ -1010,6 +1010,8 @@ extern void perf_tp_event(u64 addr, u64 count, void *record, struct hlist_head *head, int rctx, struct task_struct *task);extern void perf_bp_event (struct perf_event *event,void *data); +void perf_ftrace_ops_event (struct ftrace_ops *ops,void *record,int entry_size, +struct pt_regs *regs,struct hlist_head *head,int rctx);#ifndef perf_misc_flags# define perf_misc_flags (regs) \
kernel/events/core.c +26 -0
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@#include <linux/compat.h> #include <linux/bpf.h> #include <linux/filter.h> +#include <linux/ftrace.h> #include "internal.h"
@@ -6950,6 +6951,31 @@ static int perf_tp_event_match(struct perf_event *event,return 1 ; } +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER +void perf_ftrace_ops_event (struct ftrace_ops *ops,void *record,int entry_size, +struct pt_regs *regs,struct hlist_head *head,int rctx) +{ +struct perf_sample_data data; +struct perf_event *event; + +struct perf_raw_record raw = { + .size = entry_size, + .data = record, + }; + +perf_sample_data_init (&data,0 ,0 ); + data.raw = &raw; + +hlist_for_each_entry_rcu (event, head, hlist_entry) { +if ((&event->ftrace_ops == ops) && + (perf_tp_event_match (event, &data, regs))) +perf_swevent_event (event,1 , &data, regs); + } + +perf_swevent_put_recursion_context (rctx); +} +#endif +void perf_tp_event (u64 addr,u64 count,void *record,int entry_size,struct pt_regs *regs,struct hlist_head *head,int rctx,struct task_struct *task)
kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c +1 -2
@@ -324,8 +324,7 @@ perf_ftrace_function_call(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip, entry->ip = ip; entry->parent_ip = parent_ip; -perf_trace_buf_submit (entry,ENTRY_SIZE , rctx,0 , -1 , ®s, head,NULL ); +perf_ftrace_ops_event (ops, entry,ENTRY_SIZE , ®s, head, rctx);#undef ENTRY_SIZE }
Signature · 1 line
2.4.3
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH 2/2 ftrace: Check sample types only for sampling events
Currently we check sample type for ftrace:function event even if it's not created as sampling event. That prevents creating ftrace_function event in counting mode.
Making sure we check sample types only for sampling events.
Before:
$ sudo perf stat -e ftrace:function ls ...
Performance counter stats for 'ls':
<not supported> ftrace:function
0.001983662 seconds time elapsed
After:
$ sudo perf stat -e ftrace:function ls ...
Performance counter stats for 'ls':
44,498 ftrace:function
0.037534722 seconds time elapsed--- kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c +2 -2
@@ -52,14 +52,14 @@ static int perf_trace_event_perm(struct trace_event_call *tp_event,* event, due to issues with page faults while tracing page * fault handler and its overall trickiness nature. */ -if (!p_event->attr.exclude_callchain_user) +if (is_sampling_event (p_event) && !p_event->attr.exclude_callchain_user)return -EINVAL ;/* * Same reason to disable user stack dump as for user space * callchains above. */ -if (p_event->attr.sample_type &PERF_SAMPLE_STACK_USER ) +if (is_sampling_event (p_event) && p_event->attr.sample_type &PERF_SAMPLE_STACK_USER )return -EINVAL ; }
Signature · 1 line
2.4.3
Steven Rostedt
maintainerQuoted 10 lines · On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:45:32 +0100 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
Having following commands running concurently:
# perf record -e ftrace:function -a -o krava.data sleep 10 # perf record -e ftrace:function --filter 'ip == SyS_read' lswill endup in the latter one failing on the filter rules and store all functions (in perf.data) as instructed by the first record instead of just
SyS_readrecords.
Quoted 7 lines
The reason is that we don't check the
ftrace_opsthat triggered the event with event'sftrace_ops. Hence once running together the event from latter perf will get all the data of the event from the first one.Fixing this by having separate handler for ftrace:function event that actualy checks
ftrace_opsagainst event.
This seems redundant. I never understood the control_ops that perf uses in the function tracing infrastructure. Why can't you just register the event->ops and have that ops set the filtering? Then the ftrace infrastructure will only call that event handler for the functions its filtered on. Then you don't need to do it again. Right now ftrace already does that with the generic "control_ops" that perf uses, but now you are doing it again. Seems rather pointless.
I may need to spend some time looking at how perf uses the function tracing, and perhaps we can remove a lot of this redundancy.
-- Steve
Quoted 3 lines
Signed-off-by Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>---
Quoted 21 lines · Steven Rostedt
Quoted 10 lines · On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:45:32 +0100 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
Having following commands running concurently:
# perf record -e ftrace:function -a -o krava.data sleep 10 # perf record -e ftrace:function --filter 'ip == SyS_read' lswill endup in the latter one failing on the filter rules and store all functions (in perf.data) as instructed by the first record instead of just
SyS_readrecords.Quoted 7 lines
The reason is that we don't check the
ftrace_opsthat triggered the event with event'sftrace_ops. Hence once running together the event from latter perf will get all the data of the event from the first one.Fixing this by having separate handler for ftrace:function event that actualy checks
ftrace_opsagainst event.
Quoted 7 lines
This seems redundant. I never understood the
control_opsthat perf uses in the function tracing infrastructure. Why can't you just register theevent->opsand have that ops set the filtering? Then the ftrace infrastructure will only call that event handler for the functions its filtered on. Then you don't need to do it again. Right now ftrace already does that with the generic "control_ops" that perf uses, but now you are doing it again. Seems rather pointless.
well thats exactly what we are doing.. but as all ops share single callback we need to find the proper event this callback was triggered for
currently we use tracepoint callback (perf_tp_event) where the proper event is found based on the event->filter
however this is not the case for ftrace:function because filter will not change the event->filter, but the ops filter
Quoted 2 lines
I may need to spend some time looking at how perf uses the function tracing, and perhaps we can remove a lot of this redundancy.
that'd be cool
thanks,
jirka
Steven Rostedt
maintainerQuoted 11 lines · On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:50:57 +0100 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 7 lines
This seems redundant. I never understood the
control_opsthat perf uses in the function tracing infrastructure. Why can't you just register theevent->opsand have that ops set the filtering? Then the ftrace infrastructure will only call that event handler for the functions its filtered on. Then you don't need to do it again. Right now ftrace already does that with the generic "control_ops" that perf uses, but now you are doing it again. Seems rather pointless.well thats exactly what we are doing.. but as all ops share single callback we need to find the proper event this callback was triggered for
The ftrace_ops has a "private" field for the user to set. Could you make that point back to the event that allocated the ftrace_ops? Then the callback function could easily get the event that matches the ftrace_ops.
Quoted 6 lines
currently we use tracepoint callback (
perf_tp_event) where the proper event is found based on theevent->filterhowever this is not the case for ftrace:function because filter will not change the
event->filter, but the ops filter
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out the paths here. I would love to remove the control_ops as that complicates the function tracing code a bit more than I would like it to be.
I just crashed function tracing by function tracing perf doing function tracing :-) I'm currently debugging that (and adding more code to help debug things like this).
-- Steve
Quoted 11 lines · Steven Rostedt
Quoted 8 lines · On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:50:57 +0100 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 7 lines
This seems redundant. I never understood the
control_opsthat perf uses in the function tracing infrastructure. Why can't you just register theevent->opsand have that ops set the filtering? Then the ftrace infrastructure will only call that event handler for the functions its filtered on. Then you don't need to do it again. Right now ftrace already does that with the generic "control_ops" that perf uses, but now you are doing it again. Seems rather pointless.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
well thats exactly what we are doing.. but as all ops share single callback we need to find the proper event this callback was triggered for
The
ftrace_opshas a "private" field for the user to set. Could you make that point back to the event that allocated theftrace_ops? Then the callback function could easily get the event that matches theftrace_ops.
aaah did not see this one ;-) that will do.. nice
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 7 lines
currently we use tracepoint callback (
perf_tp_event) where the proper event is found based on theevent->filterhowever this is not the case for ftrace:function because filter will not change the
event->filter, but the ops filterYeah, I'm trying to figure out the paths here. I would love to remove the
control_opsas that complicates the function tracing code a bit more than I would like it to be.
perf is using the control interface to enable and disable function tracing any time the process (and its events) is scheduled in/out
sched_in(event) -> ftrace_function_local_enable(&event->ftrace_ops) sched_out(event) -> ftrace_function_local_disable(&event->ftrace_ops)
Quoted 4 lines
I just crashed function tracing by function tracing perf doing function tracing :-) I'm currently debugging that (and adding more code to help debug things like this).
;-)
jirka
Steven Rostedt
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:12:43 +0100 Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out the paths here. I would love to remove the
control_opsas that complicates the function tracing code a bit more than I would like it to be.perf is using the control interface to enable and disable function tracing any time the process (and its events) is scheduled in/out
sched_in(event)->ftrace_function_local_enable(&event->ftrace_ops)sched_out(event)->ftrace_function_local_disable(&event->ftrace_ops)
OK, I think we can merge the control list to the normal list and have something like:
(!op->disabled || !ftrace_function_local_disabled(op))
We can also keep the control flag for the ops, and have:
!(op->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_CONTROL) || rcu_is_watching()
test too, and use the ftrace ops list code.
-- Steve