[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200623084706.e6e99e99d7da6690e7a6c199@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:47:06 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kprobe: __blkdev_put probe is missed
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:01:48 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:27:53 +0800
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you kprobe guys improve the implementation for covering this case?
> > For example, put probe on 3) in case the above situation is recognized.
>
> To do so would require solving the halting problem.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> Or perhaps reading the DWARF output of the compiler to determine if it
> optimized the location you are looking for.
As far as I can see, gcc-9.3 doesn't generate this information :(
Maybe the optimizer forgot to push the tail-call callsite information
to dwarf generator when making a recursive tail-call to a loop.
> The first case is impossible to solve, the second would take a lot of
> work, (are you going to fund it?)
What I can provide is "--skip-prologue" option for the perf-probe
which will be similar to the "-P" option. If the compiler correctly
generates the information, we can enable it automatically. But
as far as I can see, it doesn't.
[OT] DWARF has its option(and GNU extension) but it seems not correctly
implemented yet.
http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100909.2
What I found on __blkdev_put and the callers, the "tail-call to other
function" were recorded as a call-site DIE with DW_AT_tail_call. But
if the "tail-call to itself (recursive call)" was expanded as a loop,
it was just disappeared. No call-site information, nor the DW_AT_tail_call.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists