From: "Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@redhat.com>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Human readable output for function return tracer
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:00:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c62985530811241200s5b021463qa93cce1685602fcb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081124193954.GI26466@ghostprotocols.net>
2008/11/24 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>:
> Em Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Frédéric Weisbecker escreveu:
>> 2008/11/24 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>:
>> > I do something like that in my ctracer tool[1], take a look at one of
>> > the callgraphs:
>> >
>> > http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/ostra/dccp/tx/
>>
>>
>> Oh yes, that's what I would see as an end result. Except that it would be more
>> easy for me to have the time of execution on the left (I don't need the time
>> they are called since it's just a cost measure).
>>
>>
>> > I.e. the leaf functions doesn't use {}
>>
>> I guess I could avoid it too..
>>
>>
>> > On ctracer I didn't had this problem as I don't trace all functions,
>> > just the ones that receive as one of its parameters a pointer to the
>> > desired struct, and this pointer is present in all the trace buffer
>> > entries,
>>
>> How do you do this tracing by only passing a structure?
>
> [acme@doppio linux-2.6-x86]$ pfunct --verbose --class=inode fs/ext4/ext4.ko | head
> ext4_fsblk_t ext4_new_blocks(handle_t * handle, struct inode * inode, ext4_lblk_t iblock, ext4_fsblk_t goal, long unsigned int * count, int * errp);
> ext4_fsblk_t ext4_new_meta_blocks(handle_t * handle, struct inode * inode, ext4_fsblk_t goal, long unsigned int * count, int * errp);
> ext4_fsblk_t ext4_new_meta_block(handle_t * handle, struct inode * inode, ext4_fsblk_t goal, int * errp);
> void ext4_free_blocks(handle_t * handle, struct inode * inode, ext4_fsblk_t block, long unsigned int count, int metadata);
> int ext4_check_dir_entry(const char * function, struct inode * dir, struct ext4_dir_entry_2 * de, struct buffer_head * bh, long unsigned int offset);
> int ext4_release_dir(struct inode * inode, struct file * filp);
> int ext4_release_file(struct inode * inode, struct file * filp);
> void vfs_dq_init(struct inode * inode);
> struct inode * ext4_new_inode(handle_t * handle, struct inode * dir, int mode);
> void ext4_free_inode(handle_t * handle, struct inode * inode);
> [acme@doppio linux-2.6-x86]$
>
> My first attempt at this kind of tracing used a sparse (the kernel
> checker tool uses it too), preprocessing and inserting the calls if,
> looking that the tokens, I found I was at the start of a function source
> code, and, for return tracing I just looke for return calls, inserting
> at each return point, in the source code, the call, that way I could
> even know which one of the returns were taken, and how many times.
>
> Looking at Steven's redefinition of "if", I think we could do the same
> for returns 8)
>
> Then I used the DWARF debug info to find out which functions in the
> objects of interest have as one of its args a pointer to the struct of
> interest, i.e. I find its methods, then write a kernel module
> registering jprobes and kretprobes for the functions I was interested
> in.
>
> Then I moved this to generate a systemtap script.
Ok. I see now...
> Then came the mcount approach, but it lacked return hooks.
>
> Thanks to you I guess now I should rewrite this thing again :-)
:-)
>> > so as part of postprocessing it separates the callgraphs per
>> > object.
>>
>> I would like to separate the callgraph per thread. I'm not sure how. Perhaps
>> by only drawing a simple
>>
>> ------8<----- switch to task nr x -----------8<-------------------
>
> Well, you can record, for each entry, the thread id, but then you will
> not know to what file, say, a close operation relates to.
The pid is registered automatically for each trace that uses the ring-buffer.
This way I will be able to find the files related :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-24 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-24 14:39 Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-24 16:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-24 17:16 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-25 15:18 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-25 15:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-25 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-25 15:49 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-25 15:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-25 16:01 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-24 17:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-24 17:34 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-24 18:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-11-24 19:10 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2008-11-24 19:39 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-11-24 20:00 ` Frédéric Weisbecker [this message]
2008-11-24 20:13 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
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=c62985530811241200s5b021463qa93cce1685602fcb@mail.gmail.com \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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®