Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 20/22] 20: perf: perf interface for uprobes

Srikar Dronamraju
2011-06-14T12:04:37Z

> >
> > All the discussions in this forum happened with respect to
> > <function>@<executable> form (esp since we started with the inode based
> > uprobes approach). Thats why I chose the
> > perf probe -u func@execfile. This also gave us a flexibility to define
> > two probes in two different executables in the same session/command.
> > Something like
> > perf probe -u func1@exec1 func2@exec2.
>
> I see, and sorry for changing my mind, but I think '-u execname symbol'
> style finally be good also for uprobe users when perf probe -u supports
> debuginfo, since they don't need to learn a different syntax.
>
> >
> >> I think -u option should have a path of the target binary, as below
> >>
> >> # perf probe -u /bin/zsh -a zfree
> >
> > Will --uprobe work as the long name option for -u or do you suggest
> > something else?
>
> Hmm, good question. Maybe we can use -x|--exec to define a uprobe event,
> because there is no need to give an executable file for kprobes events.
> # so that -x implies user space event on given execfile
>

Okay, then lets stick with perf probe -x executable <function-name>
then.

> >
> > 1. Its okay to use a switch like "-u" that restricts the probe
> > definition session to just the user space tracing. i.e We wont be able
> > to define a probe in user space executable and also a kernel probe in
> > one single session.
>
> I'm OK for that. The usage of perf probe is different from systemtap;
> perf probe do one thing at a time, systemtap do everything at a time.
>
> If someone want to define various probes in the kernel, they may have
> to call perf probe several times. And I'm OK for that, because all probe
> definition should be done before recording.

Right.

>
> So with perf probe, tracing is done following below 3 steps.
> 1. Definition
> 2. Recording
> 3. Analysis
>
> And each phase is done separately.
>
> > 2. Its okay to have just "target" and a flag to identify if the session
> > is a userspace probing session, instead of having separate fields for
> > userspace executable path and the module name.
> > i.e you are okay with patch "perf: rename target_module to target"
>
> Ah, that's good to me. Actually, I'm now trying to expand "target_module"
> to receive a path of offline module. It'll be better for that too.:-)

Okay, works.

>
> > 3. Currently perf_probe_point has one field "file" that was only used to
> > refer to source file. Uprobes overrides it to use it for executable file
> > too. One approach would be to add another field something like
> > "execfile" that we use to refer to executable files and use the current
> > field "file" for source files.
> > Also do you suggest that we rename the current
> > file field to "srcfile?
>
> Ah, I see. From the viewpoint of implementation, we just introduce
> a bool flag, which indicates user-probe, and a union, which has
> a "char *module" and "char *exec". :)

Okay,

>
> However, Maybe we'd better look this more carefully. Here, we have
> a problem with listing userspace probes (I mean how perf probe can
> list up the probes which is on a user app)
>
> Currently, it just ignores module name if a probe on a module.
> probe:fuse_do_open (on fuse_do_open@ksrc/linux-2.6/fs/fuse/file.c with isdir)
>
> One possible solution is to show the module name right before the
> symbol as same as the kernel does.
>
> probe:fuse_do_open (on fuse:fuse_do_open@ksrc/linux-2.6/fs/fuse/file.c with
> isdir)

This looks better to me.

>
> It seems that current your proposal doing same thing
>
> probe_zsh:zfree (on /bin/zsh:0x45400)
>
> Another way is to show it more verbosely, like below.
>
> probe:fuse_do_open (at fuse_do_open@ksrc/linux-2.6/fs/fuse/file.c with isdir
> on fuse)
> probe_zsh:zfree (at 0x45400 on /bin/zsh)
>

But I am okay with changing to this format too.

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar