linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1290020004.1921.25.camel@elnicho>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:53:24 -0600
From:	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:36 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Tom Zanussi (tzanussi@...il.com) wrote:
> [...]
> > IIRC, I think the conclusion we came to was that it could be done
> > mechanically if for example the right-hand-side of an assignment in
> > TP_fast_assign() only involved a simple variable assignment, but as
> > Steve pointed out, some assignments are more complicated than that.
> 
> Yep, we came up to the same conclusions in UST.
> 
> > For example, in the sched_switch tracepoint assignments:
> > 
> > 	__entry->prev_prio      = prev->prio;
> >         __entry->prev_state     = __trace_sched_switch_state(prev);
> > 
> > so the prev_prio should be able to be tested 'in-line' but the
> > prev_state would require a temporary buffer to write the value into
> > before doing the test as mentioned by Steve.  At which point you're no
> > further ahead (in that case) than the current situation...
> 
> if we change all assignments to, e.g.:
> 
> _tp_assign(__entry->prev_prio, prev->prio)
> _tp_assign(__entry->prev_state, __trace_sched_switch_state(prev))
> 
> then we can redefine the macros for filtering much more easily than with the
> " = " assignment operator.
> 
> About your comment above, what is the problem with evaluating
> "__trace_sched_switch_state(prev)" twice ? It will typically be cache-hot after
> the first evaluation, so I wonder if, in practice, we really save a significant
> amount of cycles by saving its result between filtering and writing into trace
> buffers. As I pointed out earlier, for my customers, having a very, very fast
> filter "out" case is more important that trying to squeeze a few cycles out of
> the filter passed case.
> 

But the idea is to avoid allocating the trace buffer in the first place,
until we've decided we want the event.  So how do you check the result
of __trace_sched_switch_state(prev) with the filter value if you don't
have it temporarily stored somewhere (not in the trace buffer, which
doesn't exist yet as far as this event is concerned)?

Tom

> Also, how many of these "__trace_sched_switch_state(prev)" are static inlines vs
> actual function calls ? If it's mostly static inlines to dereference a few
> pointers, doing it the second time when the filter passed won't hurt much.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 


--
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/