Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] perf: Take a hot regs snapshot for trace events
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Mar 04 2010 - 10:42:49 EST
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 12:07 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > oops, my bad :-), I thought this was in the x86 arch directory. For the
> > > > University, I was helping them with adding trace points for page faults
> > > > when I came across this in arch/x86/mm/fault.c:
> > > >
> > > > perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, 0, regs, address);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is what I actually was wondering about. Why is it a "perf only" trace
> > > > point instead of a TRACE_EVENT()?
> > >
> > > Because I wanted to make perf usable without having to rely on funny
> > > tracepoints. That is, I am less worried about committing software counters
> > > to ABI than I am about TRACE_EVENT(), which still gives me a terribly
> > > uncomfortable feeling.
> > I'd still like a much less error-prone and work-intense way of doing it.
> > I'd suggest we simply add a TRACE_EVENT_ABI() for such cases, where we
> > really want to expose a tracepoint to tooling, programmatically. Maybe
> > even change the usage sites to trace_foo_ABI(), to make it really clear
> > and to make people aware of the consequences.
> Would this still be available as a normal trace event?
Yeah, of course. It would not result in any usage or flexibility restriction.
( In the future we might want to add some sort of automated signature thing to
make sure that an event that has been declared an 'ABI' isnt changed - at
least as far as the record format goes. )
> > > Also, building with all CONFIG_TRACE_*=n will still yield a usable perf,
> > > which is something the embedded people might fancy, all that TRACE stuff
> > > adds lots of code.
> > Not a real issue i suspect when you do lock profiling ...
> > Or if it is, some debloating might be in order - and the detaching of event
> > enumeration and ftrace TRACE_EVENT infrastructure from other ftrace bits. (i
> > suggested an '/eventfs' special filesystem before, for nicely layed out
> > hierarchy of ftrace/perf events.)
> Actually, we already have a way to decouple it.
> include/trace/define_trace.h is the file that just adds the tracepoint
> that is needed.
> include/trace/ftrace.h is the file that does the magic and adds the code
> for callbacks and tracing.
> The perf hooks probably should not have gone in that file and been put
> into a include/trace/perf.h file, and then in define_trace.h we would
> #ifdef CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING
> #include <trace/ftrace.h>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> +#include <trace/perf.h>
> This should be done anyway. But it would also let you decouple ftrace trace
> events from perf trace events but still let the two use the same trace
I think the main thing would be to have a decoupled /eventfs - basically
/debug/tracing/events/ moved to "/eventfs" or maybe to "/proc/events/". This
would make them available more widely, and in a standardized way.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/