Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 1:58 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 10:12, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Sun 04-09-22 18:32:58, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:15 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Yes, tracking back the call trace would be really needed. The question
> > > > is whether this is really prohibitively expensive. How much overhead are
> > > > we talking about? There is no free lunch here, really.  You either have
> > > > the overhead during runtime when the feature is used or on the source
> > > > code level for all the future development (with a maze of macros and
> > > > wrappers).
> > >
> > > As promised, I profiled a simple code that repeatedly makes 10
> > > allocations/frees in a loop and measured overheads of code tagging,
> > > call stack capturing and tracing+BPF for page and slab allocations.
> > > Summary:
> > >
> > > Page allocations (overheads are compared to get_free_pages() duration):
> > > 6.8% Codetag counter manipulations (__lazy_percpu_counter_add + __alloc_tag_add)
> > > 8.8% lookup_page_ext
> > > 1237% call stack capture
> > > 139% tracepoint with attached empty BPF program
> >
> > Yes, I am not surprised that the call stack capturing is really
> > expensive comparing to the allocator fast path (which is really highly
> > optimized and I suspect that with 10 allocation/free loop you mostly get
> > your memory from the pcp lists). Is this overhead still _that_ visible
> > for somehow less microoptimized workloads which have to take slow paths
> > as well?
> >
> > Also what kind of stack unwinder is configured (I guess ORC)? This is
> > not my area but from what I remember the unwinder overhead varies
> > between ORC and FP.
> >
> > And just to make it clear. I do realize that an overhead from the stack
> > unwinding is unavoidable. And code tagging would logically have lower
> > overhead as it performs much less work. But the main point is whether
> > our existing stack unwiding approach is really prohibitively expensive
> > to be used for debugging purposes on production systems. I might
> > misremember but I recall people having bigger concerns with page_owner
> > memory footprint than the actual stack unwinder overhead.
>
> This is just to point out that we've also been looking at cheaper
> collection of the stack trace (for KASAN and other sanitizers). The
> cheapest way to unwind the stack would be a system with "shadow call
> stack" enabled. With compiler support it's available on arm64, see
> CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK. For x86 the hope is that at one point the
> kernel will support CET, which newer Intel and AMD CPUs support.
> Collecting the call stack would then be a simple memcpy.

Thanks for the note Marco! I'll check out the CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
on Android.