On Mon, 2026-10-12 at 18:18 +0200, Tobias Schaffner wrote: > > First of all, would dropping RV in-kernel support negatively affect your > > current workflow? > > I am afraid it would, but first mine is a niche use case, and > second I am not very experienced with BPF, so please weigh that in.
Thanks for sharing, I'm asking this question precisely to find out all use cases. RV is itself a niche tool, so I'd rather not squash use-cases away! > > About this series, I believe we could implement the same using BPF maps > > without too much effort, then the rv userspace tool could display them > > nicely. > > > > What do you think? > > From an implementation perspective there may be a few pieces missing, > both in EVL and in BPF, to make this work. But I guess most of them can > use the patterns the kernel already has for NMIs, so I expect we would > find a way. I'm curious to know how exactly you're tracing EVL right now. Are you having it generate NMIs to linux and catch their tracepoints? RV attaches to tracepoints and BPF would do exactly the same. > I have two more fundamental concerns though. One about verification and > one about recording dwell times. > > Regarding verification: > The path I verify is deliberately kept short and simple. RV fits well > because the probe is a plain function call and the state update is a > try_cmpxchg that cannot fail, so it adds very little. A BPF program > brings more machinery into the probe path doesn't it? I fear that adding > this would force me to verify that the new RV system does not change the > behavior of the system we are trying to verify, and I suspect that could > be harder than verifying the system itself. I had a few conversation with some Functional Safety folks over the past weeks (the same people Daniel used to talk to), I now understand the problem better. Their use-case was even stricter, that's why RV didn't take off for them, essentially they're trying to prove some more isolation from interference RV doesn't really have out of the box. But back to the RV vs BPF case, I'm trying to reuse the exact same code in handlers, so the verification step should be mostly equivalent. Assuming you'd use tracepoints (BPF can have more probes but vanilla RV does not), I guess you'd need to validate also the ftrace code that ends up calling your handler. BPF adds a bit more on top of that too, not much though. Then obviously there's the data representation: we use BPF maps that can be quite complex, though simple arrays (in per-cpu/global monitors) shouldn't be. That would probably add more to the verification you need to make.. > Regarding dwell timings: > The numbers you presented look very good. But wouldn't we lose > determinism by using BPF? If I want to use this as a measurement tool, I > need it either not to add latency or to add a constant amount. The mean > wake-up latency of EVL on my system is around 10 us, so an observer does > not have to be very variable before I can no longer tell its jitter from > the timings I am trying to measure. Ok that's a good point I'd like to investigate more. BPF shows great performance in the average case, though I fear it could have worst case spikes my quick tests didn't show. I'd need to run more numbers to be absolutely sure of that, I'm not aware of any internal locks in the simple maps we are using (though I only quickly checked). BPF maps are clearly heavier (memory indirection and/or function calls, sometimes mitigated by the JIT). But if we properly set them up we shouldn't expect big determinism issues. Nevertheless, this is definitely something I need to look into. The whole JIT thing shouldn't bring big problems either, once handlers are compiled, they should run almost natively, but again, I am not too familiar with everything that happens under the hood so take this with a grain of salt. Thanks, Gabriele
