lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] convert to syscall tracepoints
    On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 01:02:35AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:38:33PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 11:25:26PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:40:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > > > > * Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > +#ifdef __NR_time
    > > > > > > +trace_event_syscall(1, time, time_t __user *, tloc);
    > > > > > > +#endif
    > > > > > > +
    > > > > > > +#ifdef __NR_stime
    > > > > > > +trace_event_syscall(1, stime, time_t __user *, tptr);
    > > > > > > +#endif
    > > > > > > +
    > > > > > > +#ifdef __NR_gettimeofday
    > > > > > > +trace_event_syscall(2, gettimeofday, struct timeval __user *, tv, struct timezone __user *, tz);
    > > > > > > +#endif
    > > > > >
    > > > > > This could be reduced to a single line: just add a Kconfig entry
    > > > > > (say TRACE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS) wether an arch supports syscall
    > > > > > tracepoints, enable it on a sane arch, make sure it has all the
    > > > > > syscalls and list them ...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > As more architectures turn on SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS, they'll have to
    > > > > > resolve any deviations in syscall entry points. Ideally we'd have
    > > > > > one generic table that covers 95% of all syscalls, and the remaining
    > > > > > 5% in some architecture specific #ifdef section.
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > true, but this implementation works for all arches now, why would
    > > > > want to slowly add this over time? [...]
    > > >
    > > > Because the current solution is butt-ugly ...
    > > >
    > > > > [...] I think its unnecessary work that could be error prone.
    > > >
    > > > This area needs cleanups - making it messier doesnt help. (I've
    > > > Cc:-ed hpa - he has expressed interest in auto-generating all the
    > > > syscall related details from another angle ...)
    > > >
    > > > > > But, more generally, i'm not at all convinced that we need _any_
    > > > > > of this enumeration. Look how much the above lines duplicate
    > > > > > DEFINE_SYSCALL macros. Why arent those macros re-used?
    > > > >
    > > > > The DEFINE_SYSCALL() are located all over the code in various .c files.
    > > >
    > > > yes, and that's good.
    > > >
    > > > > Thus, if we define the tracpoints via the DEFINE_SYSCALL() macros
    > > > > we are going to have 'static inline functions' (which is how
    > > > > tracepoints are implemented) defined in all these .c files. Now, I
    > > > > need to call all these 'static inline functions' from ptrace.c.
    > > > > How do I do that? [...]
    > > >
    > > > And that's bad.
    > > >
    > > > We dont want a per syscall tracepoint call site. AT ALL.
    > > >
    > > > We want to collect the record information, we want to construct
    > > > /debug/tracing/events/syscalls/ directories with all the proper
    > > > tracepoint-lookalike entries, and then we want to use the
    > > > _existing_, _zero overhead_ method implemented by Frederic to get
    > > > per syscall functionality.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Yes, this can easily be done....but that wasn't the problem I was
    > > interested in solving. I wanted a per syscall tracepoint site. I thought
    > > I had been making that clear all along...Please notice that the
    > > implementation I've proposed obtains the syscall number, and then jumps
    > > to the appropriate tracepoint and then exits. Its quite efficient. In
    > > fact, I've enabled all of the syscalls using my proposed method and
    > > running tbench I'm able to get more throughput then using the current
    > > syscall method. I've also done 'getpid()' loops and seen no performance
    > > difference between the approaches. I'm happy to run any other
    > > benchmarks...
    > >
    > > > Have you looked at how the syscall attributes information is
    > > > constructed by using .section tricks? See:
    > > > kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c.
    > > >
    > >
    > > yes, I believe I understand the problem space. I had been talking about
    > > a per-syscall tracepoint all along...maybe I wasn't clear...
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > >
    > > -Jason
    >
    >
    > Ok, I understand the problem.
    > Well, the fact is that we can use the artifact from the current syscall tracer
    > to solve a part of this problem.
    >
    > Currently the syscall tracer does the following:
    >
    > - create a section with all syscalls informations, provided by DEFINE_SYSCALL()
    > That includes the size, type, name of parameters.
    >
    > - map a table during the boot which resolves a syscall number to its information
    > in the syscall metadata section
    >
    > - uses a generic "trace_syscall()" (or something like that) in ptrace.c (x86)
    > which gather informations from the current syscalls (get from the mapped table)
    > and then send the trace to the ring buffer.
    >
    > - have a pretty printing (well, not that much actually) callback which, again,
    > retrieve the syscall information from its number after getting the trace from
    > the ring buffer. And then the raw field values aree printed, with the field
    > names, and their types, optionally.
    >
    > Now what I would suggest to avoid this whole listing of syscalls in your patch
    > is to avoid the use of hardcoded tracepoints.
    >
    > We can't really use TRACE_EVENT() here without using the listing you did.
    > Instead, you could define a custom struct ftrace_event_call from DEFINE_SYSCALL().
    >
    > In regfunc() you can turn on TIF_FTRACE (using a refcounter).
    >
    > The struct trace_event ftrace_event_type can reuse the existing output callback
    > for syscall tracing which retrieve the syscall informations.
    >
    > void ftrace_raw_event_##call() can be replaced by calling directly the existing
    > generic callback for syscall tracing trace insertion.
    >
    > And the arch mapping table can resolve a syscall number to its matching
    > event.
    >

    hmmm..so I presume this would layer on 2 tracepoints? One in syscall
    entry and one in exit, presumably passing a 'struct pt_regs'? I think
    the refcounter would also have to be deeper in the tracepoint
    infrastructure since the event tracing wouldn't be the only potential
    user of these tracepoints.

    thanks,

    -Jason


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-09 16:17    [W:0.030 / U:30.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site