Re: [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints havedata?passed to tracepoint callbacks

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 10:39 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 11:40:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >> 
> > > >> diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint.h b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > > >> index 78b4bd3..ee8059a 100644
> > > >> --- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > > >> +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > > >> @@ -20,12 +20,17 @@
> > > >>  struct module;
> > > >>  struct tracepoint;
> > > >>  
> > > >> +struct tracepoint_func {
> > > >> +	void *func;
> > > >> +	void *data;
> > > >> +};
> > > >> +
> > > >>  struct tracepoint {
> > > >>  	const char *name;		/* Tracepoint name */
> > > >>  	int state;			/* State. */
> > > >>  	void (*regfunc)(void);
> > > >>  	void (*unregfunc)(void);
> > > >> -	void **funcs;
> > > >> +	struct tracepoint_func *funcs;
> > > >>  } __attribute__((aligned(32)));		/*
> > > >>  					 * Aligned on 32 bytes because it is
> > > >>  					 * globally visible and gcc happily
> > > >> @@ -46,14 +51,18 @@ struct tracepoint {
> > > >>   */
> > > >>  #define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args)					\
> > > >>  	do {								\
> > > >> -		void **it_func;						\
> > > >> +		struct tracepoint_func *it_func_ptr;			\
> > > >> +		void *it_func;						\
> > > >> +		void *__data;						\
> > > >>  									\
> > > >>  		rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace();				\
> > > >> -		it_func = rcu_dereference_sched((tp)->funcs);		\
> > > >> -		if (it_func) {						\
> > > >> +		it_func_ptr = rcu_dereference_sched((tp)->funcs);	\
> > > >> +		if (it_func_ptr) {					\
> > > >>  			do {						\
> > > >> -				((void(*)(proto))(*it_func))(args);	\
> > > >> -			} while (*(++it_func));				\
> > > >> +				it_func = (it_func_ptr)->func;		\
> > > >> +				__data = (it_func_ptr)->data;		\
> > > >> +				((void(*)(proto))(it_func))(args);	\
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >So, we had a talk about this and we concluded that it is probably fine
> > > >on every archs to push one more argument than needed in a function.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I'm hoping it's fine.
> > 
> > How about changing the callback prototypes to match the call arguments (changing
> > the type expected in register/unregister_trace, as well as an additional "check
> > type" that I proposed for Ftrace) ?
> 
> This can not happen!!!! As I said before, the register is done in C,
> there is no macro that will help here. We create the call back with the
> macro, but the registering is in kernel/trace/trace_events.c. One
> register for ___ALL___ events!!!
> 
>  Thus there is no check.
> 
> Understand this yet?

Clearly understood. I was referring to add a static inline
check_trace_##name##_callback_type(...) { } call within the callbacks you
generate. It generates no code and adds compiler type-checking (rather than
relying on CPP macro correctness for type-correctness).

> 
> 
> > 
> > Otherwise, you basically expect here that:
> > 
> > void fct(void *foo, void *bar, etc etc) (N parameters expected)
> > {
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > called by:
> > 
> > fct(foo, bar, etc etc, foobar) (N + 1 parameters)
> > 
> > will always work.
> > 
> > Can you show me where the C standard says it is safe to do so ?
> 
> No, but it seems safe in the kernel ;-)

The use of "seems" here does not give me a warm feeling of safety. ;)

> 
> But that said. There is another option that will conform to this, and
> that is to add flags to registering tracepoints. I already wrote a patch
> for this in trying to do some other work (that I threw away).
> 
> 
> So here's the proposal.
> 
> Change struct tracepoint_func to...
> 
> struct tracepoint_func {
> 	void *func;
> 	void *data;
> 	unsigned int flags;
> };
> 
> 
> The flags is set when registered. If a function is registered with data,
> then the flags field will be set. Then the calling of the function can
> be:
> 
> 	if ((it_func_ptr)->flags & TP_FL_DATA)
> 		((void(*)(proto, void *))(it_func)(args, __data);
> 	else
> 		((void(*)(proto))(it_func)(args);
> 
> This would comply with the C standard.

This would also add a branch on the tracing fast path, which I would like to
avoid. Why can't we simply change all prototypes to take an extra void *__data
parameter instead ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/