[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALOAHbBaFYYvTDd4tFtYZznbNi-9pwXrNRrQb2iLa9st9M8wxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 23:05:17 +0800
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
acme <acme@...nel.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
0day robot <lkp@...el.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkp <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qiang Zhang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>,
robdclark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
christian <christian@...uner.io>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
bristot <bristot@...hat.com>,
aubrey li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
yu c chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [sched.h] 317419b91e: perf-sanity-tests.Parse_sched_tracepoints_fields.fail
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:48 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:40:04 +0800
> Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > mount -t tracefs nodev /sys/kernel/tracing
> > > cat /sys/kernel/tracing/events/sched/sched_switch/format
> > >
> > > name: sched_switch
> > > ID: 314
> > > format:
> > > [...]
> > > field:char prev_comm[16]; offset:8; size:16; signed:1;
> > > [...]
> > > field:char next_comm[16]; offset:40; size:16; signed:1;
> > >
> > > Both of those fields expose a fixed-size of 16 bytes.
> > >
> > > AFAIK Steven's intent was that by parsing this file, trace viewers could adapt to
> > > changes in the event field layout. Unfortunately, there have been cases where
> > > trace viewers had a hard expectation on the field layout. Hopefully those have
> > > all been fixed a while ago.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have a clear idea what will happen to trace viewers if we
> > extend task comm.
>
> There shouldn't be any doing a hard coded read of the events. That happened
> once with powertop, but they broke when they ran 32 bit userspace on a 64
> bit kernel, and they switched to libtraceevent to fix it. Which handles
> these updates.
>
Thanks for the explanation.
> >
> > Steven, do you have any suggestions ?
>
> The "Don't break user space" is a "tree in the forest" argument. We break
> user space all the time. But if no user space tool is around to hear it,
> did it really break? The answer is "no".
>
Got it!
--
Thanks
Yafang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists