This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sourceware.org mailing list for the systemtap project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [TAPSETS] Linux Kernel Event Trace Tool


Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org> writes:

> > [...] The runtime functions callable from
> > probes should assume atomic calls: no reentrancy, no interrupts, and
> > so on.

> So it leaves the locking to the probe provider. You know that it
> limits the set of instrumentable kernel functions to the ones that
> can be protected by disabling interrupts.

Not exactly.  Those functions could still in theory be instrumented,
but an actual run-time reentry into the probing system would be
detected, the probe short-circuited, and a "missed probe" would be
recorded.

> Page faults and NMI handlers are two examples where this locking
> scheme fails.  All traps, exceptions and fault handlers cannot then
> be safely instrumented,

I am probably missing something.  Could you sketch out a scenario that
causes a safety problem?

> or at the cost of doing each one a special case (for each
> architecture). [...]

Depending on what's involved, writing per-architecture support is not
necessarily beyond our means.

- FChE


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]