5 This document describes BPF ring buffer design, API, and implementation details.
14 There are two distinctive motivators for this work, which are not satisfied by
15 existing perf buffer, which prompted creation of a new ring buffer
18 - more efficient memory utilization by sharing ring buffer across CPUs;
19 - preserving ordering of events that happen sequentially in time, even across
20 multiple CPUs (e.g., fork/exec/exit events for a task).
22 These two problems are independent, but perf buffer fails to satisfy both.
23 Both are a result of a choice to have per-CPU perf ring buffer. Both can be
24 also solved by having an MPSC implementation of ring buffer. The ordering
25 problem could technically be solved for perf buffer with some in-kernel
26 counting, but given the first one requires an MPSC buffer, the same solution
27 would solve the second problem automatically.
32 Single ring buffer is presented to BPF programs as an instance of BPF map of
33 type ``BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF``. Two other alternatives considered, but
36 One way would be to, similar to ``BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY``, make
37 ``BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF`` could represent an array of ring buffers, but not
38 enforce "same CPU only" rule. This would be more familiar interface compatible
39 with existing perf buffer use in BPF, but would fail if application needed more
40 advanced logic to lookup ring buffer by arbitrary key.
41 ``BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH_OF_MAPS`` addresses this with current approach.
42 Additionally, given the performance of BPF ringbuf, many use cases would just
43 opt into a simple single ring buffer shared among all CPUs, for which current
44 approach would be an overkill.
46 Another approach could introduce a new concept, alongside BPF map, to represent
47 generic "container" object, which doesn't necessarily have key/value interface
48 with lookup/update/delete operations. This approach would add a lot of extra
49 infrastructure that has to be built for observability and verifier support. It
50 would also add another concept that BPF developers would have to familiarize
51 themselves with, new syntax in libbpf, etc. But then would really provide no
52 additional benefits over the approach of using a map. ``BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF``
53 doesn't support lookup/update/delete operations, but so doesn't few other map
54 types (e.g., queue and stack; array doesn't support delete, etc).
56 The approach chosen has an advantage of re-using existing BPF map
57 infrastructure (introspection APIs in kernel, libbpf support, etc), being
58 familiar concept (no need to teach users a new type of object in BPF program),
59 and utilizing existing tooling (bpftool). For common scenario of using a single
60 ring buffer for all CPUs, it's as simple and straightforward, as would be with
61 a dedicated "container" object. On the other hand, by being a map, it can be
62 combined with ``ARRAY_OF_MAPS`` and ``HASH_OF_MAPS`` map-in-maps to implement
63 a wide variety of topologies, from one ring buffer for each CPU (e.g., as
64 a replacement for perf buffer use cases), to a complicated application
65 hashing/sharding of ring buffers (e.g., having a small pool of ring buffers
66 with hashed task's tgid being a look up key to preserve order, but reduce
69 Key and value sizes are enforced to be zero. ``max_entries`` is used to specify
70 the size of ring buffer and has to be a power of 2 value.
72 There are a bunch of similarities between perf buffer
73 (``BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY``) and new BPF ring buffer semantics:
75 - variable-length records;
76 - if there is no more space left in ring buffer, reservation fails, no
78 - memory-mappable data area for user-space applications for ease of
79 consumption and high performance;
80 - epoll notifications for new incoming data;
81 - but still the ability to do busy polling for new data to achieve the
82 lowest latency, if necessary.
84 BPF ringbuf provides two sets of APIs to BPF programs:
86 - ``bpf_ringbuf_output()`` allows to *copy* data from one place to a ring
87 buffer, similarly to ``bpf_perf_event_output()``;
88 - ``bpf_ringbuf_reserve()``/``bpf_ringbuf_commit()``/``bpf_ringbuf_discard()``
89 APIs split the whole process into two steps. First, a fixed amount of space
90 is reserved. If successful, a pointer to a data inside ring buffer data
91 area is returned, which BPF programs can use similarly to a data inside
92 array/hash maps. Once ready, this piece of memory is either committed or
93 discarded. Discard is similar to commit, but makes consumer ignore the
96 ``bpf_ringbuf_output()`` has disadvantage of incurring extra memory copy,
97 because record has to be prepared in some other place first. But it allows to
98 submit records of the length that's not known to verifier beforehand. It also
99 closely matches ``bpf_perf_event_output()``, so will simplify migration
102 ``bpf_ringbuf_reserve()`` avoids the extra copy of memory by providing a memory
103 pointer directly to ring buffer memory. In a lot of cases records are larger
104 than BPF stack space allows, so many programs have use extra per-CPU array as
105 a temporary heap for preparing sample. bpf_ringbuf_reserve() avoid this needs
106 completely. But in exchange, it only allows a known constant size of memory to
107 be reserved, such that verifier can verify that BPF program can't access memory
108 outside its reserved record space. bpf_ringbuf_output(), while slightly slower
109 due to extra memory copy, covers some use cases that are not suitable for
110 ``bpf_ringbuf_reserve()``.
112 The difference between commit and discard is very small. Discard just marks
113 a record as discarded, and such records are supposed to be ignored by consumer
114 code. Discard is useful for some advanced use-cases, such as ensuring
115 all-or-nothing multi-record submission, or emulating temporary
116 ``malloc()``/``free()`` within single BPF program invocation.
118 Each reserved record is tracked by verifier through existing
119 reference-tracking logic, similar to socket ref-tracking. It is thus
120 impossible to reserve a record, but forget to submit (or discard) it.
122 ``bpf_ringbuf_query()`` helper allows to query various properties of ring
123 buffer. Currently 4 are supported:
125 - ``BPF_RB_AVAIL_DATA`` returns amount of unconsumed data in ring buffer;
126 - ``BPF_RB_RING_SIZE`` returns the size of ring buffer;
127 - ``BPF_RB_CONS_POS``/``BPF_RB_PROD_POS`` returns current logical possition
128 of consumer/producer, respectively.
130 Returned values are momentarily snapshots of ring buffer state and could be
131 off by the time helper returns, so this should be used only for
132 debugging/reporting reasons or for implementing various heuristics, that take
133 into account highly-changeable nature of some of those characteristics.
135 One such heuristic might involve more fine-grained control over poll/epoll
136 notifications about new data availability in ring buffer. Together with
137 ``BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP``/``BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP`` flags for output/commit/discard
138 helpers, it allows BPF program a high degree of control and, e.g., more
139 efficient batched notifications. Default self-balancing strategy, though,
140 should be adequate for most applications and will work reliable and efficiently
143 Design and Implementation
144 -------------------------
146 This reserve/commit schema allows a natural way for multiple producers, either
147 on different CPUs or even on the same CPU/in the same BPF program, to reserve
148 independent records and work with them without blocking other producers. This
149 means that if BPF program was interruped by another BPF program sharing the
150 same ring buffer, they will both get a record reserved (provided there is
151 enough space left) and can work with it and submit it independently. This
152 applies to NMI context as well, except that due to using a spinlock during
153 reservation, in NMI context, ``bpf_ringbuf_reserve()`` might fail to get
154 a lock, in which case reservation will fail even if ring buffer is not full.
156 The ring buffer itself internally is implemented as a power-of-2 sized
157 circular buffer, with two logical and ever-increasing counters (which might
158 wrap around on 32-bit architectures, that's not a problem):
160 - consumer counter shows up to which logical position consumer consumed the
162 - producer counter denotes amount of data reserved by all producers.
164 Each time a record is reserved, producer that "owns" the record will
165 successfully advance producer counter. At that point, data is still not yet
166 ready to be consumed, though. Each record has 8 byte header, which contains the
167 length of reserved record, as well as two extra bits: busy bit to denote that
168 record is still being worked on, and discard bit, which might be set at commit
169 time if record is discarded. In the latter case, consumer is supposed to skip
170 the record and move on to the next one. Record header also encodes record's
171 relative offset from the beginning of ring buffer data area (in pages). This
172 allows ``bpf_ringbuf_commit()``/``bpf_ringbuf_discard()`` to accept only the
173 pointer to the record itself, without requiring also the pointer to ring buffer
174 itself. Ring buffer memory location will be restored from record metadata
175 header. This significantly simplifies verifier, as well as improving API
178 Producer counter increments are serialized under spinlock, so there is
179 a strict ordering between reservations. Commits, on the other hand, are
180 completely lockless and independent. All records become available to consumer
181 in the order of reservations, but only after all previous records where
182 already committed. It is thus possible for slow producers to temporarily hold
183 off submitted records, that were reserved later.
185 One interesting implementation bit, that significantly simplifies (and thus
186 speeds up as well) implementation of both producers and consumers is how data
187 area is mapped twice contiguously back-to-back in the virtual memory. This
188 allows to not take any special measures for samples that have to wrap around
189 at the end of the circular buffer data area, because the next page after the
190 last data page would be first data page again, and thus the sample will still
191 appear completely contiguous in virtual memory. See comment and a simple ASCII
192 diagram showing this visually in ``bpf_ringbuf_area_alloc()``.
194 Another feature that distinguishes BPF ringbuf from perf ring buffer is
195 a self-pacing notifications of new data being availability.
196 ``bpf_ringbuf_commit()`` implementation will send a notification of new record
197 being available after commit only if consumer has already caught up right up to
198 the record being committed. If not, consumer still has to catch up and thus
199 will see new data anyways without needing an extra poll notification.
200 Benchmarks (see tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c) show that
201 this allows to achieve a very high throughput without having to resort to
202 tricks like "notify only every Nth sample", which are necessary with perf
203 buffer. For extreme cases, when BPF program wants more manual control of
204 notifications, commit/discard/output helpers accept ``BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP`` and
205 ``BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP`` flags, which give full control over notifications of
206 data availability, but require extra caution and diligence in using this API.