RE: [tip:tracing/core] Revert "x86, bts: reenable ptrace branchtrace support"

[Metzger, Markus T]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:36 AM
>To: Metzger, Markus T
>Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; hpa@xxxxxxxxx; oleg@xxxxxxxxxx;
>tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxx; linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [tip:tracing/core] Revert "x86, bts: reenable ptrace branch trace support"
>
>On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 07:30 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: tip-bot for Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@xxxxxxx]
>> >Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:37 AM
>> >To: linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Cc: hpa@xxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Metzger, Markus T; oleg@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> >tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxx
>> >Subject: [tip:tracing/core] Revert "x86, bts: reenable ptrace branch trace support"
>> >
>> >Commit-ID:  511b01bdf64ad8a38414096eab283c7784aebfc4
>> >Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/511b01bdf64ad8a38414096eab283c7784aebfc4
>> >Author:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
>> >AuthorDate: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:32:00 +0200
>> >Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
>> >CommitDate: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:32:00 +0200
>> >
>> >Revert "x86, bts: reenable ptrace branch trace support"
>> >
>> >This reverts commit 7e0bfad24d85de7cf2202a7b0ce51de11a077b21.
>> >
>> >A late objection to the ABI has arrived:
>> >
>> >   http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/10/253
>>
>> I thought that this has been resolved. See for example http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/10/257.
>>
>> Peters concerns were that Debug Store details are exposed to user space, which is
>> not the case. Debug Store itself is fully in-kernel and the expectation of a
>> user-defined buffer can be implemented on top of the Debug Store changes that
>> Peter expects are needed to support PEBS.
>>
>> A user-defined trace buffer size is required to support different usage models.
>> Some users only need a small amount of trace, whereas others need a big amount.
>> The interface will have to reflect that in some way.
>
>Right, your last email did explain how we could keep per task in-kernel
>buffers and fill them from the DS and still have them of user-specified
>size.
>
>That would indeed keep the proposed ABI workable, what I'm still not
>liking is that this buffer is in-kernel, but I guess that might be
>something for other people to have an opinion on.

The alternative would be to give a user-allocated buffer to the tracing h/w.

We would need to take precautions to prevent the user from messing around
with that buffer while the h/w is writing to it. Other code uses the kernel-
allocated buffer plus copy_to_user() approach, as well.

Further, it would require the user to interpret the various tracing formats,
whereas the existing interface provides an architecture-independent format.


Does anybody have concerns on using an in-kernel buffer and providing a 
copy_to_user() interface?


regards,
markus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

--
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/