Message-ID: <20101117133608.GG27063@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:36:08 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] trace: Add user-space event tracing/injection


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > User-space tracing schemes tend to be clumsy and limiting. There's other 
> > disadvantages as well: approaches that expose a named pipe in /tmp or an shmem 
> > region are not transparent and robust either: if user-space owns a pending 
> > buffer then bugs in the apps can corrupt the trace buffer, can prevent its 
> > flushing when the app goes down due to an app bug (and when the trace would be 
> > the most useful), etc. etc.
> 
> Sure, but you're not considering the fact that Jato already needs an interface to 
> communicate its generated symbols, also writing its own events really isn't a big 
> deal after that.

But Jato is special there (it's a special execution machine with its own symbol 
space) - and most apps that generate trace events are not such.

Also, while it's not a big deal to not get symbols, it's a big deal to not get trace 
events _exactly when they are needed most_: when the app crashes or corrupts itself.

I.e. the kernel does us a real and useful service of extracting and then protecting 
data.

> > Also, in general their deployment isnt particularly fast nor lightweight - while 
> > prctl() is available everywhere.
> 
> I know your reasoning, but deployment isn't everything. Technical sanity does, I 
> hope, still count for something as well.

I agree that a prctl() isnt particularly nice - a new syscall would be nicer, if it 
wasnt such a PITA to get new syscalls supported by widely available libraries like 
glibc.

But i disagree that there should be pending buffers in the tracee context. Having 
app-side data buffering introduces the sorts of problems i outlined, that the data 
can be lost or corrupted when we need _reliable_ (and non-corrupted) trace data the 
most.

We could use the vDSO approach for super-fast and super-voluminous tracing needs, 
although i really doubt that it's the common case.

Availability is the biggest issue by far - and availability is inverse proportional 
to deployment complexity.

> > And when it comes to tracing/instrumentation, if we make deployment too complex, 
> > people will simply not use it - and we all use. A prctl() isnt particularly sexy 
> > design, but it's a task/process event that we are generating (so related to 
> > prctls), plus it's available everywhere and is very easy to deploy.
> 
> Different tools for different people, complex applications like JITs can use a 
> more complex interface to communicate all their various data.

Yes but i dont want complex interfaces at all - i want rich trace data from many 
apps, so that tracing tools start to make sense.

> A simple printk() style interface through a syscall (preferably not prctl) is fine 
> too, it just doesn't suffice for everything, nor should we want it to.

Well, it covers about 80-90% of the needs, so it was the first thing i considered.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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