From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
To: Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca>
Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH lttng-ust] Add ctor/dtor priorities for tracepoints/events
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:24:52 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1851244021.9798.1594646692671.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tuycybqx.fsf@clara>
----- On Jul 12, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Olivier Dion olivier.dion@polymtl.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>> ----- On Jul 11, 2020, at 11:29 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
>>
>>> Some library might want to generate events in their ctor/dtor. If
>>> LTTng initialize/finalize its tracepoints/events at the wrong time,
>>> events are lost.
>>>
>>> Order of execution of the ctor/dtor is determined by priority. When
>>> some priorities are equal, the order of execution seems to be
>>> determined by:
>>>
>>> a) Order of appearance if in the same compilation unit
>>>
>>> b) Order of link if in different compilation units
>>>
>>> c) Order of load by ld-linux.so or dlopen(3) for
>>> share objects
>>
>> I recall different rules about constructor priorities. Can you provide
>> links to documentation stating the priority order you describe above ?
>
> I haven't found any documentation on that. This is purely empirical.
> Although I'm sure that we can dig something if chatting on GCC's IRC.
If it is not documented, then I am reluctant on depending on a behavior
which may be what happens today, but may not be the same for past/future
toolchains.
>
>> Also, we should compare two approaches to fulfill your goal:
>> one alternative would be to have application/library constructors
>> explicitly call tracepoint constructors if they wish to use them.
>
> I would prefer this way. The former solution might not work in some
> cases (e.g. with LD_PRELOAD and priority =101) and I prefer explicit
> initialization in that case.
>
> I don't see any cons for the second approach, except making the symbols
> table a few bytes larger. I'll post a patch soon so we can compare and
> try to find more documentation on ctor priority.
And users will have to explicitly call the constructor on which they
depend, but I don't see it as a huge burden.
Beware though that there are a few configurations which can be used for
probe providers (see lttng-ust(3)).
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> --
> Olivier Dion
> PolyMtl
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
To: Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca>
Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH lttng-ust] Add ctor/dtor priorities for tracepoints/events
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:24:52 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1851244021.9798.1594646692671.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200713132452.CbmgXRtytnLXxXAhQP0Z4H1MdFYyG31HMOzXpcImgVo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tuycybqx.fsf@clara>
----- On Jul 12, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Olivier Dion olivier.dion@polymtl.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>> ----- On Jul 11, 2020, at 11:29 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
>>
>>> Some library might want to generate events in their ctor/dtor. If
>>> LTTng initialize/finalize its tracepoints/events at the wrong time,
>>> events are lost.
>>>
>>> Order of execution of the ctor/dtor is determined by priority. When
>>> some priorities are equal, the order of execution seems to be
>>> determined by:
>>>
>>> a) Order of appearance if in the same compilation unit
>>>
>>> b) Order of link if in different compilation units
>>>
>>> c) Order of load by ld-linux.so or dlopen(3) for
>>> share objects
>>
>> I recall different rules about constructor priorities. Can you provide
>> links to documentation stating the priority order you describe above ?
>
> I haven't found any documentation on that. This is purely empirical.
> Although I'm sure that we can dig something if chatting on GCC's IRC.
If it is not documented, then I am reluctant on depending on a behavior
which may be what happens today, but may not be the same for past/future
toolchains.
>
>> Also, we should compare two approaches to fulfill your goal:
>> one alternative would be to have application/library constructors
>> explicitly call tracepoint constructors if they wish to use them.
>
> I would prefer this way. The former solution might not work in some
> cases (e.g. with LD_PRELOAD and priority =101) and I prefer explicit
> initialization in that case.
>
> I don't see any cons for the second approach, except making the symbols
> table a few bytes larger. I'll post a patch soon so we can compare and
> try to find more documentation on ctor priority.
And users will have to explicitly call the constructor on which they
depend, but I don't see it as a huge burden.
Beware though that there are a few configurations which can be used for
probe providers (see lttng-ust(3)).
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> --
> Olivier Dion
> PolyMtl
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-13 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-11 15:29 [PATCH lttng-ust] Add ctor/dtor priorities for tracepoints/events Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-11 15:29 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-12 13:49 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-12 13:49 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-12 15:49 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-12 15:49 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 13:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev [this message]
2020-07-13 13:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 15:19 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 15:19 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 15:28 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 18:46 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 18:46 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 18:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 18:58 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 19:44 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2020-07-13 19:44 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1851244021.9798.1594646692671.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=olivier.dion@polymtl.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.