[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 3.2.0-rc5 9/9] perf: perf interface for uprobes
    > I mean that tp->module always !NULL if uprobe, then, we don't need
    > to change the code. (thus we can reduce the patch size :))

    Agree, the new patch that I sent does this.

    > >>> +
    > >>> +#define DEFAULT_FUNC_FILTER "!_*"
    > >>
    > >> This is a hidden rule for users ... please remove it.
    > >> (or, is there any reason why we need to have it?)
    > >>
    > >
    > > This is to be in sync with your commit
    > > 3c42258c9a4db70133fa6946a275b62a16792bb5
    > I see, but that commit also provides filter option for changing
    > the function filter. Here, user can not change the filter rule.
    > I think, currently, we don't need to filter any function by name
    > here, since the user obviously intends to probe given function :)

    Actually this was discussed in LKML here, please refer the sub-thread.

    Basically without this filter, the list of functions is too large
    including labels, weak, and local binding function which arent traced.

    We can make this filter settable at a later point of time.

    > >
    > > If the user provides a symbolic link, convert_name_to_addr would get the
    > > target executable for the given executable. This would handy if we were
    > > to compare existing probes registered on the same application using a
    > > different name (symbolic links). Since you seem to like that we register
    > > with the name the user has provided, I will just feed address here.
    > Hmm, why do we need to compare the probe points? Of course, event-name
    > conflict should be solved, but I think it is acceptable that user puts
    > several probes on the same exec:vaddr. Since different users may want
    > to use it concurrently bit different ways.

    The event-names themselves are generated from the probe points. There is
    no problem as such if two or more people use a different symlinks to
    create probes. I was just trying to see if we could solve the
    inconsitency where we warn a person if he is trying to place a probe on
    a existing probe but allow the same if he is trying to place a probe on
    a existing probe using a different symlink.

    This again I have changed as you suggested in the latest patches that I
    sent this week.

    Thanks and Regards

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-13 06:27    [W:0.024 / U:1.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site