[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180417163527.GA7775@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:35:27 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/x86: Update syscall trace events to handle new
x86 syscall func names
Em Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:54:40AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
> Arnaldo noticed that the latest kernel is missing the syscall event system
> directory in x86. I bisected it down to d5a00528b58c ("syscalls/core,
> syscalls/x86: Rename struct pt_regs-based sys_*() to __x64_sys_*()").
>
> The system call trace events are special, as there is only one trace event
> for all system calls (the raw_syscalls). But a macro that wraps the system
> calls creates meta data for them that copies the name to find the system
> call that maps to the system call table (the number). At boot up, it does a
> kallsyms lookup for this mapping. If it does not find a function, then that
> system call is ignored.
>
> Because the x86 system calls had "__x86_" appended to the "sys" for the
> names, they do not match the default compare algorithm. As this was a
> problem for power pc, the algorithm can be overwritten by the architecture.
> The solution is to have x86 have its own algorithm to do the compare and
> this brings back the system call trace events.
>
> Reported-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> Fixes: d5a00528b58c ("syscalls/core, syscalls/x86: Rename struct pt_regs-based sys_*() to __x64_sys_*()")
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
[root@...et ~]# perf test openat
2: Detect openat syscall event : Ok
3: Detect openat syscall event on all cpus : Ok
15: syscalls:sys_enter_openat event fields : Ok
[root@...et ~]#
[root@...et ~]# perf trace -e nanosleep,syscalls:*nanosleep sleep 1
0.000 ( ): syscalls:sys_enter_nanosleep:rqtp: 0x7ffd9f737950, rmtp: 0x00000000
0.009 ( ): sleep/7905 nanosleep(rqtp: 0x7ffd9f737950 ) ...
1000.204 ( ): syscalls:sys_exit_nanosleep:0x0
0.009 (1000.217 ms): sleep/7905 ... [continued]: nanosleep()) = 0
[root@...et ~]#
Works, so the regression seems to be fixed, without looking at the code
that much:
Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists