[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180307085705.GL25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:57:05 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] trace_uprobe: Support SDT markers having semaphore
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 02:16:13PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > W.T.H. is that called a semaphore? afaict its just a usage-counter.
>
> I totally agree with you. But it's not me who named it semaphore :)
>
> Please refer to "Semaphore Handling" section at:
> https://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/UserSpaceProbeImplementation
>
> We can surly name it differently in the kernel code and document it
> properly in the Documents/tracing/
Yes, just because the SDT people failed their CS101 class doesn't mean
we need to perpetuate that failure. Please name it sensibly in our code.
> > Also, would it not be much better to do userspace jump-labels for this?
> > That completely avoids the dynamic branch at the SDT site.
> >
>
> Userspace jump-label is a good idea but...
>
> Semaphore logic has already became a kinda ABI now. Tools like bcc,
> gdb, systemtap etc. flip the semaphore while probing the marker.
*groan*.. maybe suggest it for the next version; it appears we're
already at SDTv3, so surely there will be a v4 too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists