Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

Andrew Morton
2006-09-15T17:59:20Z

On 15 Sep 2006 13:08:29 -0400
fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > >
> > > prepare_arch_switch(rq, next);
> > > + TRACE_SCHEDCHANGE(prev, next);
> > > prev = context_switch(rq, prev, next);
> > > barrier();
> >
> > The gdb debug data lets you find each line and also the variable
> > assignments (except when highly optimised in some cases). [...]
>
> Unfortunately, variables and even control flow are quite regularly
> made non-probe-capable by modern gcc. Statement boundaries and
> variables are not preserved. There is an arms race within gcc to both
> improve code optimization and its own "reverse-engineering" debugging
> data generation, and the former is always ahead.
>
> The end result is that there are many spots that we'd like to probe in
> systemtap, but can't place exactly or extract all the data we'd like.
> Really.

Useful info, thanks.

> There are also spots that for other reasons cannot tolerate a fully
> dynamic kprobes-style probe:
>
> - where 1000-cycle int3-dispatching overheads too high

Is that still true of the recent kprobes "boosting" changes?

> - in low-level code such as fault handling or locking, that, if probed
> dynamically, could entail infinite regress
> - debugging information may not be available
>
> This is the reason why I'm in favour of some lightweight event-marking
> facility: a way of catching those points where dynamic probing is not
> sufficiently fast or dependable.

OK.

> > [...]
> > All we appear to lack is systemtap ability to parse debug data so it can
> > be told "trace on line 9 of sched.c and record rq and next"
>
> Actually:
>
> #! stap
> probe kernel.function("*@kernel/sched.c:9") { printf("%p %p", $rq, $next) }
>

Really. That's impressive progress.