Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:10:06 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip tracing/kprobes 0/9] tracing/kprobes, perf: perf probe and kprobe-tracer bugfixes | From | Ashwin Chaugule <> |
| |
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com> wrote:
> arch/x86/lib/x86-opcode-map.txt | 23 ++++- > kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 39 ++++++-- > tools/perf/Documentation/perf-probe.txt | 48 ++++++++++ > tools/perf/Makefile | 5 + > tools/perf/builtin-probe.c | 70 ++++++--------- > tools/perf/command-list.txt | 1 > tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c | 149 ++++++++++++++----------------- > tools/perf/util/probe-finder.h | 17 ---- > tools/perf/util/util.h | 9 ++ > 9 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tools/perf/Documentation/perf-probe.txt >
Masami, I really like your idea with kprobes ! I havent yet run this stuff on my machine, but I've been planning to utilize kprobes with perfevents too. Please let me know if the following functionality is already possible with your patches.
The basic idea I had was to be able to profile any function in the kernel using kprobes and use the perfevents framework to monitor things like incorrect branch predictions, cache misses etc. for the scope of that function. That way, we can fine tune kernel functions that are in the hot path of kernel control flow, using gcc tricks, inline assembly, or even architecture specific tricks.
Alternately, I think even dynamic trace could provide similar insight with perfevents ? If none of this is already done, I plan to work on this in my spare time and would like to team up with anyone else interested.
Cheers, Ashwin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |