This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes 4/7] tracing/kprobes: Add event profiling support
- From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec at gmail dot com>
- To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis dot org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>, lkml <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, systemtap <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>, DLE <dle-develop at lists dot sourceforge dot net>, Jim Keniston <jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, Andi Kleen <ak at linux dot intel dot com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, Jason Baron <jbaron at redhat dot com>, "K.Prasad" <prasad at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs at cn dot fujitsu dot com>, Li Zefan <lizf at cn dot fujitsu dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:55:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes 4/7] tracing/kprobes: Add event profiling support
- References: <20090910235258.22412.29317.stgit@dhcp-100-2-132.bos.redhat.com> <20090910235329.22412.94731.stgit@dhcp-100-2-132.bos.redhat.com> <20090911031253.GD16396@nowhere> <4AAA7938.7070200@redhat.com> <20090914030244.GC14306@nowhere> <4AAE7540.9090009@redhat.com>
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:54:24PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> I'd like to have a dispatcher function and flags internally :)
>>
>>
>> You mean kprobes that could support multiple probes?
>> That would be a nice solution IMHO...
>
> Yeah, actually kprobes could support multiple probes on the
> same point. But kprobe structure has many extensions which
> kprobe-tracer doesn't need, e.g. post_handler/break_handler,
> opcode, arch sprcific instructions.
> Kretprobe consumes more memories for storing return points :(.
>
> Thus, if we know there are two functions to be called on the
> same probe point, I think it is better to have a dispatcher.
> (Especially, in this case, we can call fixed functions, so
> it's easier way.)
>
Yeah, you could union the post_handler with profile_handler
or something like that.
It depends if kprobes may need one day to support an undeterminate
number of probes.
Also, is the post_handler called at the same location than the normal
probe?
And is a post handler called even if there is no normal handler?
There might be some of such factors that would force you to handle a
lot of corner cases, things that you wouldn't need to worry about
if you just had to maintain a simple rcu list of probes to call.