[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AAE7540.9090009@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:54:24 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes 4/7] tracing/kprobes: Add event profiling
support
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:22:16PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>> +static int probe_profile_enable(struct ftrace_event_call *call)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct trace_probe *tp = (struct trace_probe *)call->data;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (atomic_inc_return(&call->profile_count))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (probe_is_return(tp)) {
>>>> + tp->rp.handler = kretprobe_profile_func;
>>>> + return enable_kretprobe(&tp->rp);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + tp->rp.kp.pre_handler = kprobe_profile_func;
>>>> + return enable_kprobe(&tp->rp.kp);
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> May be I misunderstood but it seems that concurrent uses of
>>> ftrace and perf would really mess up the result, as one would
>>> overwrite the handler of the other.
>>>
>>> Even though it's hard to imagine one using both at the same
>>> time on the same probe, but still...
>>
>> Oops, it's my misunderstanding. I thought those are exclusively
>> enabled each other.
>
>
> It's automatically managed with events because ftrace and
> and perf have their individual tracepoint probes, because
> tracepoints support multiple probes.
>
>
>>> Is it possible to have two kprobes having the exact same
>>> properties? (pointing to the same address, having the same
>>> probe handlers, etc...)
>>>
>>> Another solution would be to allow kprobes to have multiple
>>> handlers.
>>
>> It could be to have multiple kprobes on same point, but I think
>> it's waste of the memory and time in this case.
>
>
> Yeah.
>
>
>>
>> I'd like to have a dispatcher function and flags internally :)
>
>
> You mean kprobes that could support multiple probes?
> That would be a nice solution IMHO...
Yeah, actually kprobes could support multiple probes on the
same point. But kprobe structure has many extensions which
kprobe-tracer doesn't need, e.g. post_handler/break_handler,
opcode, arch sprcific instructions.
Kretprobe consumes more memories for storing return points :(.
Thus, if we know there are two functions to be called on the
same probe point, I think it is better to have a dispatcher.
(Especially, in this case, we can call fixed functions, so
it's easier way.)
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists