linux-kernel - Re: adding trace-cmd's plugins to perf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:51:04 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: adding trace-cmd's plugins to perf

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 03:35:36PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 06:22:47PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:50:29PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > > Right now perf script cannot process kvm tracepoints:
> > > 
> > > perf record -e kvm:* -p 6446 -- sleep 5
> > > 
> > > perf script
> > >   Warning: Error: expected type 4 but read 7
> 
> > > are about merging common code between the two commands. Also, trace-cmd and perf
> > > are in separate repositories so a shared lib is going to inconvenience
> > > one of the two.
> > 
> > So, we copied the tools/perf/util/trace-event-* files from trace-cmd to perf
> > a while go. Then both files took their own path, both pulling fixes/enhancement
> > from each others (probably more in the trace-cmd -> perf direction).
> > 
> > And perf is indeed a bit backward wrt parsing, because it lacks those plugins
> > for example. So now it would be nice to unify that in a common lib so that it
> > works well in both.
> > 
> > Steve proposed a shared tools/trace.so, that perf and trace-cmd could plug
> > into, I really would like to see that happening too.
> > 
> > I think Ingo had some reserves about this, due to potential versioning
> > and compatibility that such a dynamic lib would involve.
> 
> So we don't commit to an ABI for a while, just linking with it, changing
> users when changing the ABI.
> 
> I encourage David to go and add the bits of trace-cmd he needs for
> support the plugins he wants used in perf on tools/lib/ and make perf
> use it.
> 
> That way we again reduce the differences between the codebases, or at least
> reduce the feature gap.

Also, just FYI, I have this RAS daemon patchset which splits perf functionality
into different sub-libs, which are more or less topic based:

tools/lib/trace/ - all the trace-event* stuff from Steven
tools/lib/lk/	- generic enough stuff (git headers, etc) which several tools could use
tools/lib/perf/ - functionality related to perf events

Here's the last submission http://marc.info/?l=linux-edac&m=129562244211501&w=2
and I'm currently finishing a new rebase against tip/perf/core.

If you're fine with that split I'd suggest I load off my stuff first so
that David can continue from there and I can finally stop rebasing like
crazy each time perf moves forward.

Opinions? Suggestions?

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/