I've played with bpf iterators and wrote a post about them [1]. The benefit of iterating over tasks instead of scanning procfs is a pretty astounding performance difference:
> I ran benchmarks on current code in the datadog-agent which reads the relevant data from procfs as described at the beginning of this post. I then implemented benchmarks for capturing the same data with bpf. The performance results were a major improvement.
> On a linux system with around 250 Procs it took the procfs implemention 5.45 ms vs 75.6 us for bpf (bpf is ~72x faster). On a linux system with around 10,000 Procs it took the procfs implemention ~296us vs 3ms for bpf (bpf is ~100x faster).
And with eBPF iterators you can bail out early and move to next if you see a non-interesting item (or one that should be filtered out) instead of emitting textual data of all items and later grepping/filtering things out in post-processing.
I use early bailout a lot (in 0x.tools xcapture) when iterating through all threads in a system and determining which ones are “active” or interesting
I like this tool. I just replaced a multi-step script to find running processes with deleted files open (e.g., updated shared library or binary) that used to be as follows:
- grep /proc/*/maps for " (deleted)" (needs root)
- exclude irrelevancies like paths starting with "/memfd:" (I have lots of other similar exclusions) with grep -v
- extract the pid from the filename part of grep's output with sed
- for each pid, generate readable output from /proc/$pid/cmdline (which is NUL separated) with tr, xargs, bash printf
- show the pid, cmdline, file path
Yes, this is what needs-restarting does too.
With this tool, this pipe chain is now just:
doas psc -o "process.pid,process.cmdline,file.path" \
'file.path.endsWith(" (deleted)") && !file.path.startsWith("/memfd:") && !...' \
| sed 1d
This is neat but the examples comparing the tool against piping grep seem to counter the argument to me. A couple of pipes to grep seems much easier to remember and type, especially with all the quotes needed for psc. For scripts where you need exact output this looks great.
I’m the opposite - I much prefer a structured query language (ahem) for this type of thing. If I’m looking at someone’s (ie my own 6 months later) script I much prefer to see the explicit structure being queried vs “why are we feeling for foo or grabbing the 5th field based on squashed spaces as the separater”.
Thanks for including so many examples! Perhaps include one example output. Other than mention of the optional '--tree' parameter, it's unclear if the default result would be a list, table, JSON, etc.
The commands in their example are not equivalent. The ps | grep thing searches the full command line including argument while ps -C (and, presumably, the psc thing) just returns the process name.
Should you for some reason want to do the former, this is easiest done using:
pgrep -u root -f nginx
which exists on almost all platforms, with the notable exception of AIX.
Their other slightly convoluted example is:
psc 'socket.state == established && socket.dstPort == uint(443)'
Many new tools appear because people don't know how to use the existing tools or they think the existing tool is too complicated. In time the new tool becomes just as, or more, complicated than the old tool. Because there is a reason the old tool is complicated, which is that the problem requires complexity.
> psc uses eBPF iterators to read process and file descriptor information directly from kernel data structures. This bypasses the /proc filesystem entirely, providing visibility that cannot be subverted by userland rootkits or LD_PRELOAD tricks.
> I ran benchmarks on current code in the datadog-agent which reads the relevant data from procfs as described at the beginning of this post. I then implemented benchmarks for capturing the same data with bpf. The performance results were a major improvement.
> On a linux system with around 250 Procs it took the procfs implemention 5.45 ms vs 75.6 us for bpf (bpf is ~72x faster). On a linux system with around 10,000 Procs it took the procfs implemention ~296us vs 3ms for bpf (bpf is ~100x faster).
[1] https://www.grant.pizza/blog/bpf-iter/
reply