Hi -

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:16:35PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
quoted text
> [...]
> > Think this through.  How should systemtap (or another user-space
> > separate-compiled tool like lttng) do this exactly?
> > [...]
> > (d) or another way?
> 
> use a lookup table. we can expect that the marking points which
> regularly inserted in the upstream kernel are stable(not so
> frequently change). In that case, we can easily maintain
> a lookup table which has pairs of format strings like as
> "sched_switch(struct task_struct * next, struct task_struct * prev)":"next %p prev %p"
> out of tree. Thus, you can use the printf-style format parser.

That's an interesting idea, but errors in this table would themselves
only be caught at C compilation time.  Worse, it does nothing helpful
for actually pulling out the next/prev fields of interest.  Remember,
real tracing users don't care so much about the task_struct pointers,
but about observable things like PIDs.  Systemtap would be back to the
debuginfo or C-header-guessing/parsing job (or embedded-C, yuck).

This is another reason why markers are a nice solution.  They allow
passing of actual useful values: not just the %p pointers but the most
interesting derived values (e.g., prev->pid).  And they do this
*efficiently* - in out-of-line code that imposes no measurable
overhead in the normal case..


- FChE
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/