[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE40pdftVg+vuDpYhwsuBj_Ptk9P+TrB3M4GDB0xtvEqxYEt2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:53:58 -0700
From: Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com>
Cc: systemtap@...rceware.org, iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BPF runtime for systemtap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com> wrote:
> I'm pleased to be able to announce an initial implementation of an (e)bpf
> backend for systemtap. For the subset of systemtap probes that can use
> kprobes, we can use a bpf filter instead of loading a kernel module.
>
> As this implementation is young, there are a number of limitations. Neither
> string nor stats types are supported. Both require enhancements to the set
> of builtin functions supported in kernel. The stap bpf loader still needs
> improvement with respect to its use of the event subsystem.
>
> We're using the same intermediate file format that is supported by the llvm
> bpf backend. I have some improvements to submit for the llvm bpf backend as
> well.
>
> The code can be reviewed at
>
> git://sourceware.org/git/systemtap.git rth/bpf
Great! Is there a hello world example in there somewhere? I found this:
# ./stapbpf/stapbpf -h
Usage: ./stapbpf/stapbpf [-v][-w][-V][-h] [-o FILE] <bpf-file>
-h, --help Show this help text
-v, --verbose Increase verbosity
-V, --version Show version
-w Suppress warnings
-o FILE Send output to FILE
But I didn't see an explicit BPF example or bpf-file. Is it implicit?
Should I be able to run a stap one-liner with some -v's and see it
switches to using BPF, if I restrain myself to what's supported so
far? Eg, since you mentioned kprobes, how about?:
stap -ve 'probe kprobe.function("vfs_fsync") { println(pointer_arg(2)) }'
Brendan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists