Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c

["K. Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:29:52AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 08:46:44AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > except worse by encoding local variable names and exposing kernel
> > > > pointers.
> > > 
> > > The pointers are probably excessive, the and the names don't really
> > > matter.
> >
> > Then what do we do when someone comes along and changes one of those
> > names; do we go around changing the markers and then requiring all
> > tools to change as well? (And no this isn't far fetched; I'm
> > thinking of changing fshared in the near future).
> 
> At least two answers apply.  The markers being put in should be chosen
> with the concurrence of the subsystem maintainer, who should help
> identify those key quantities that are likely to be both long-lived
> and good diagnostic value.  So that's the discussion we're having
> right now: which values should be passed.  If they're long-lived, then
> they can be given a long-lived name - and it doesn't have to be a
> low-level C variable name.  (There's no reason why we can't also have
> a slew of short-lived pure-debugging sorts of markers compiled in.  A
> marker naming convention like "__futex..." can be adopted for such
> purposes - where nothing is promised for version n+1, just hoping to
> help diagnose problems in this version.)
> 
> The other answer is that we should ensure that tools do not assume
> that the set of markers is fixed.  Let's never set such an
> expectation.  (In systemtap, we have several abstraction and
> version-adaptation facilities that aim to hide such changes.)
> The kernel guy can choose at least two methods to help tools
> without contraining himself too much.  He can change
> 
>         trace_mark(futex_foo, "p1 %d p2 %d", p1, p2);
> 
> to a pair:
> 
>         trace_mark(futex_foo, "p1 %d p2 %d", 0, p2); // backward compat.
>         trace_mark(futex_foo2, "p2 %d p3 %d", p2, p3); // new marker
> 
> or even just drop the backward compatibility one altogether.
> 
> It will need judicious choices by the kernel and willingness by the
> tools to keep up.  Those that don't will simply notice fewer events
> coming in, but nothing important *breaking*.
> 
> The current crop of tools (lttng, systemtap) are both from friendly
> groups who recognize that they have more of an expendable diagnostic
> rather than operational role, and thus are willing to carry that
> burden.  By the time new tools will show up, we will have more
> experience with the degree and type of marker changes over time, and
> they won't be in a position to place new constraints on the
> establishment.
> 
> 
> > Sounds like people will complain and generate back pressure against
> > such changes - something we should avoid. As soon as these markers
> > place a significant burden on code maintenance I'm against it.
> 
> Indeed.  This is why it's important for the subsystem maintainer to
> wisely influence the markers as they go in.
> 
> 
> > > That, plus the new hand-written function (trace_futex_wait) would
> > > still need to manage the packaging of the arguments for consumption by
> > > separately compiled pieces.  It is desirable not to require such
> > > hand-written functions to *also* be declared in headers for these
> > > event consumers to compile against.
> 
> > *blink* so all this is so you don't have to put a declarion in a
> > header file? How about we put these premanent markers in a header -
> > Mathieu says there are <200. Surely that's not too much trouble.
> > [...]
> 
> It's not just that - it's a whole package including easy creation of
> new markers, the code that manages their activation and deactivation,
> the tool code that connects up to receive new events *and parameters*.
> The current approach does not require tight compilation-level
> coupling.  Indeed, for a new marker, the current approach requires
> *no* code changes to anywhere other than the one-line inserted marker,
> for tools like systemtap to connect and use them.  Cool eh?
> 
> 
> - FChE

Hi Peter,
	Adding to what Frank and others have said before, it would be
nice to have you point out which markers or parameters exported by
them are superfluous and I'm willing to have them removed from my patch.

I've just sent out another patch over marker infrastructure to Mathieu
which will eliminate the need to re-send the format string during
initialisation and if accepted, the patch should take care of any
concerns about duplication of code.

Indeed any markers in futex.c that you think would be absolutely
unnecessary can be removed on a case-by-case basis, but do let us know
them.

Thanks,
K.Prasad