From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] s390 vs. kprobes on ftrace
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:49:56 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <543F5C84.7090005@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1413387978-984-1-git-send-email-heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Hi Heiko,
(2014/10/16 0:46), Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we would like to implement an architecture specific variant of "kprobes
> on ftrace" without using the current HAVE_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE infrastructure
> which is currently only used by x86.
>
> The rationale for these two patches is:
> - we want to patch the first instruction of the mcount code block to
> reduce the overhead of the function tracer
> - we'd like to keep the ftrace_caller function as simple as possible and
> not require it to generate a 100% valid pt_regs structure as required
> by the combination of DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS and HAVE_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE.
> This allows us to not generate the psw mask field in the pt_regs
> structure on each function tracer enabled function, which otherwise would
> be very expensive. Besides that program check generated pt_regs contents
> are "more" accurate than program generated ones and don't require any
> maintenance.
> And also we can keep the ftrace and kprobes backends quite separated.
I'm not sure about s390 nor have the machine, so it is very helpful if you
give us a command line level test and show us the result with this patch :)
Fortunately, we already have ftracetest under tools/tesitng/selftest/ftrace/.
You can add the testcase for checking co-existence of kprobes and ftrace on
an entry of a function.
And also, since ftrace is now supporting assembly trampoline code for each
handler, performance overhead can be reduced if we save registers only when
the kprobes enabled on the function. I'm not sure it can implement on s390,
but your requirement looks similar. What would you think about that?
Thank you,
>
> In order to make this work a small common code change is necessary which
> removes a check if kprobe is being placed on an ftrace location (see
> first patch).
>
> If possible, I'd like to have an ACK from at least one of the kprobes
> maintainers for the first patch and bring it upstream via the s390 tree.
>
> Thanks,
> Heiko
>
> Heiko Carstens (2):
> kprobes: introduce ARCH_HANDLES_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
> s390/ftrace,kprobes: allow to patch first instruction
>
> arch/Kconfig | 8 +++
> arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/s390/include/asm/ftrace.h | 52 ++++++++++++++--
> arch/s390/include/asm/kprobes.h | 1 +
> arch/s390/include/asm/lowcore.h | 4 +-
> arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h | 12 ++++
> arch/s390/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 1 -
> arch/s390/kernel/early.c | 4 --
> arch/s390/kernel/ftrace.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> arch/s390/kernel/kprobes.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> arch/s390/kernel/mcount.S | 1 +
> arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 2 -
> arch/s390/kernel/smp.c | 1 -
> kernel/kprobes.c | 3 +-
> scripts/recordmcount.c | 2 +-
> scripts/recordmcount.pl | 2 +-
> 16 files changed, 220 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
>
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-16 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-15 15:46 [PATCH 0/2] s390 vs. kprobes on ftrace Heiko Carstens
2014-10-15 15:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] kprobes: introduce ARCH_HANDLES_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE Heiko Carstens
2014-10-20 1:55 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-10-20 18:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-10-21 1:51 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-10-15 15:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] s390/ftrace,kprobes: allow to patch first instruction Heiko Carstens
2014-10-16 5:49 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2014-10-16 10:57 ` [PATCH 0/2] s390 vs. kprobes on ftrace Heiko Carstens
2014-10-21 9:37 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-10-17 8:19 ` Heiko Carstens
2014-10-17 8:28 ` Heiko Carstens
2014-10-20 2:02 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-10-20 6:41 ` Heiko Carstens
2014-10-17 8:21 ` Heiko Carstens
2014-10-20 1:31 ` Masami Hiramatsu
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=543F5C84.7090005@hitachi.com \
--to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=vojtech@suse.cz \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox