Re: Kernel marker has no performance impact on ia64.

Frank Ch. Eigler
2008-06-12T15:55:44Z

Hi -

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 04:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
> > Well, the string contains each field name and type. Therefore, SystemTAP
> > can hook on a marker and parse the string looking for some elements by
> > passing a NULL format string upon probe registration. Alternatively, it
> > can provide the exact format string expected when it registers its probe
> > to the marker and a check will be done to verify that the format string
> > passed along with the registered probe matches the marker format string.
>
> Yes, I get that, its one of the ugliest things I've met in this whole
> marker story. Why can't stap not insert a normal trace handler that
> extracts the information from prev/next it wants? [...]

Think this through. How should systemtap (or another user-space
separate-compiled tool like lttng) do this exactly?

(a) rely on debugging information? Even assuming we could get proper
anchors (PC addresses or unambiguous type names) to start
searching dwarf data, we lose a key attractions of markers: that
it can robustly transfer data *without* dwarf data kept around.

(b) rely on hand-written C code (prototypes, pointer derefrencing
wrappers) distributed with systemtap? Not only would this be a
brittle maintenance pain in the form of cude duplication, but then
errors in it couldn't even be detected until the final C
compilation stage. That would make a lousy user experience.

(c) have systemtap try to parse the mhiramat-proposed "(struct
task_struct * next, struct task_struct * prev)" format strings?
Then we're asking systemtap to parse potentially general C type
expressions, find the kernel headers that declare the types?
Parse available subfields? That seems too much to ask for.

(d) or another way?

- FChE