mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: types for storing instruction pointers
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:12:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090608141209.GC14234@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090608135106.GA2276@lst.de>


* Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 03:25:16PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Currently the _THIS_IP_ and _RET_IP_ macros aded for lockdep but 
> > > now available from kernel.org case the instruction pointer to an 
> > > unsigned long.  But the %pf/%pF format for printing them want a 
> > > pointer of some sort.  That's a pretty nasty situation for tracers 
> > > - can we standardize on one type for it?
> > 
> > Yes but what's the practical problem exactly? Could you cite an 
> > example?
> 
> The simplest tracer in xfs showing this is the following:
> 
> /*
>  * ilock/iolock tracer
>  *
>  * Reports the inode, operation, flags and caller for each operation
>  * on the inode locks.
>  */
> TRACE_EVENT(xfs_ilock,
> 	TP_PROTO(struct xfs_inode *ip, const char *op, unsigned lockflags,
> 		 unsigned long caller_ip),
> 	TP_ARGS(ip, op, lockflags, caller_ip),
> 
> 	TP_STRUCT__entry(
> 		__field(dev_t, dev)
> 		__field(xfs_ino_t, ino)
> 		__field(const char *, op)
> 		__field(int, lockflags)
> 		__field(unsigned long, caller_ip)
> 	),
> 
> 	TP_fast_assign(
> 		__entry->dev = VFS_I(ip)->i_sb->s_dev;
> 		__entry->ino = ip->i_ino;
> 		__entry->op = op;
> 		__entry->lockflags = lockflags;
> 		__entry->caller_ip = caller_ip;
> 	),
> 
> 	TP_printk("dev %d:%d ino 0x%lld %s %s by %pF",
> 		  MAJOR(__entry->dev), MINOR(__entry->dev),
> 		  __entry->ino,
> 		  __entry->op,
> 		  __print_flags(__entry->lockflags, "|", XFS_LOCK_FLAGS),
> 		  (void *)__entry->caller_ip)
> );
> 
> It has the following callers:
> 
> 	trace_xfs_ilock(ip, "lock", lock_flags, _RET_IP_);
> 	trace_xfs_ilock(ip, "lock_nowait", lock_flags, _RET_IP_);
> 	trace_xfs_ilock(ip, "unlock", lock_flags, _RET_IP_);
> 	trace_xfs_ilock(ip, "demote", lock_flags, _RET_IP_);
> 
> Basically everything obtained via _RET_IP_/_THIS_IP_ needs to be 
> casted.  Given that both need to case the their return value to a 
> pointer that's rather unfortunately.  Life would be much easier if 
> _RET_IP_/_THIS_IP_ just returned a pointer (probably just a void 
> pointer, maybe with a fancy typedef to make it clear we're dealing 
> with an instruction pointer here).

Yeah, there's really no coherency in this area anywhere in the 
kernel. IPs are often represented as unsigned long, in symbol lookup 
and elsewhere - that is where lockdep got that principle from. There 
it hurts if we do this change - i.e. we'd just shift the point of 
'friction' between types from tracing to the symbol lookup code and 
to platform code.

So i'd fully agree with making all that a (void *), but then you 
need to hunt down all the other uses of code addresses as well and 
standardize the thing all across the kernel. Not a small patch :-)

( Plus turning it into a separate type probably makes sense as well, 
  as there are platforms where function pointers are different from 
  regular pointers so keeping them sorted separate is good. )

	Ingo

      reply	other threads:[~2009-06-08 14:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-04 13:14 Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-07 13:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-08 13:51   ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-08 14:12     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]

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=20090608141209.GC14234@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®