[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259082845.22249.1110.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:14:05 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing - fix function graph trace to properly display
failed entries
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:57 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's a case where the graph tracer might get confused and omits
> display of a single record. This applies for both destructive
> (trace_pipe) and nondestructive (trace) cases.
>
>
> <issue description>
>
> The issue description for nondestructive case (trace) follows:
>
> As the function_graph tracer goes through the trace entries (using "trace" file)
> it keeps pointer to the current record and the next one:
>
> current -> func1 ENTRY
> next -> func2 ENTRY
> func2 RETURN
> func1 RETURN
>
> If it spots adjacent ENTRY and RETURN trace entries of the same function
> and pid, it displays the "func2();" trace
>
> func1 ENTRY
> current -> func2 ENTRY
> next -> func2 RETURN
> func1 RETURN
>
> and moves the next trace entry pointer behind the RETURN entry
>
> func1 ENTRY
> current -> func2 ENTRY
> func2 RETURN
> next -> func1 RETURN
>
> so the next record peek will skip the RETURN entry and continue with
> whatever is next.
>
> It works ok but for one case.
>
> If the "func2()" trace does not make it to the seq_file read buffer, it needs
In the trace_pipe it may be possible to fill the trace_seq buffer if the
buffer passed into userspace is larger than the trace_seq buffer. But
the trace_seq buffer should never overflow on the "trace" case. If it
is, then there's probably another bug.
> to be processed again in the next read. And here comes the issue:
> the next read will see following pointers setup for func2 processing:
>
> func1 ENTRY
> current -> func2 ENTRY
> func2 RETURN
> next -> func1 RETURN
>
> which will turn to displaying the func2 entry like: "func2() {", since the
> next entry is not RETURN of the same type. Generaly it is whatever entry
> that follows, but definitelly not the RETURN entry of the same function.
>
> The destructive case (trace_pipe) suffers from the similar issue,
> although it keeps only the current pointer.
>
> </issue description>
>
>
> The following patch propose generic solution for both cases.
> It keeps the last read entry/return in the tracer private
> iterator storage and keeps track of the failed output.
> Whenever the output fails, next read will output previous
> 'not displayed' entry before processing next entry.
Have you added tests to make sure that the trace_seq buffer is indeed
filling up? In the trace_pipe, this could happen when the user buffer
gets full.
What I think you are seeing, is a buffer overflow during a run. If the
trace buffer overflows, it will leave gaps in the trace. Those abandoned
leaf functions are probably a result of a trace buffer wrap.
I don't thing this is the proper solution to the problem.
>
> static inline ssize_t trace_seq_to_user(struct trace_seq *s, char __user *ubuf,
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> index 874f289..ca52715 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> @@ -3049,10 +3049,14 @@ waitagain:
(side note)
This is why I like to have spaces in front of labels (not a comment on
this patch). I hate trying to figure out what function this is for :-p
Luckily, in this case, there's only one function with "waitagain" label.
> if (cnt >= PAGE_SIZE)
> cnt = PAGE_SIZE - 1;
>
> - /* reset all but tr, trace, and overruns */
> - memset(&iter->seq, 0,
> + /*
> + * Reset all but tr, trace, and overruns. Preserve 'failed'
> + * field in the trace_seq structure.
> + */
> + trace_seq_init(&iter->seq);
> + memset(&iter->ent, 0,
> sizeof(struct trace_iterator) -
> - offsetof(struct trace_iterator, seq));
> + offsetof(struct trace_iterator, ent));
> iter->pos = -1;
>
> trace_event_read_lock();
-- Steve
--
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