linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] perf/sdt: Add support to perf record to trace SDT events

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:20:38 +0530
From:	Hemant Kumar <hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
CC:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
	hegdevasant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com, anton@...hat.com,
	systemtap@...rceware.org, aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	penberg@....fi
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] perf/sdt: Add support to perf record to
 trace SDT events

Hi Masami,

> Hi,
>
> (2014/11/04 17:06), Hemant Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Namhyung,
>>
>> On 11/04/2014 01:08 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Hemant,
>>>
>>> As you know, you need to keep an eye on how (kprobes) event cache
>>> patchset from Masami settles down.  For those who aren't CC'ed, please
>>> see the link below:
>>>
>>>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/31/207
>>>
>>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 16:26:28 +0530, Hemant Kumar wrote:
>>>> This patch adds support to perf to record SDT events. When invoked,
>>>> the SDT event is looked up in the sdt-cache. If its found, an entry is
>>>> made silently to uprobe_events file and then recording is invoked, and
>>>> then the entry for the SDT event in uprobe_events is silently 
>>>> discarded.
>>>>
>>>> The SDT events are already stored in a cache file
>>>> (/var/cache/perf/perf-sdt-file.cache).
>>>> Although the file_hash table helps in addition or deletion of SDT 
>>>> events
>>>> from the cache, its not of much use when it comes to probing the 
>>>> actual
>>>> SDT event, because the key to this hash list is a file name and not 
>>>> the
>>>> SDT event name (which is given as an argument to perf record). So, we
>>>> won't be able to hash into it.
>>> It likely to be ended up with per-file or per-buildid cache files under
>>> ~/.debug directory.  In this case we also need to have the (central)
>>> event-to-cache table anyway IMHO.
>
> What we are talking is to make a new caching file with buildid under
> .debug/.
> We already has ~/.debug/.build-id/<build-id> for string the binary
> symbol maps. I think there are 2 options, one is expanding the current
> build-id file format to include sdt and probe-event caches. The other is

Like a single cache to manage all the events for that file? How do we 
distinguish between the events as we will be having perf record to read 
SDT events from this cache?

> to add ~/.debug/.build-id/<build-id>.probe and
> ~/.debug/.build-id/<build-id>.sdt for caching probe/sdt information.
>

This approach looks convenient.

> And also, user interface is a discussion point. This series defines new
> sdt-cache command, and we already have buildid-cache command. We should
> have probe-cache command too? or consolidate those cache managing 
> commands?
> This question should be involving your series too.
>

I think, we need not have multiple sub-commands to manage the cache. We 
can consolidate the cache management of probe events (including SDT 
events) to a single command.

>>>> To avoid this problem, we can create another hash list "event_hash" 
>>>> list
>>>> which will be maintained along with the file_hash list.
>>>> Whenever a user invokes 'perf record -e %provider:event, perf should
>>>> initialize the event_hash list and the file_hash list.
>>>> The key to event_hash list is calculated from the event name and its
>>>> provider name.
>>> Isn't it enough just to use provide name?  I guess the provider names
>>> are (should be?) unique among a system although there's no absolute
>>> guarantee for that.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there is no guarantee for the provider names to be unique.
>> If we use only provider name with "perf record", then, what if a user
>> wants to trace
>> only a specific SDT event (not all the events for that provider)?
>> What do you think?
>
> How about failing if the provider name is not unique unless user
> gives the actual binary path?
>
>

You mean something like this:
# perf record -e %provider @/path/to/file ...?

-- 
Thanks,
Hemant Kumar

--
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/