This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH v3] Tracepoint Tapset for Memory Subsystem
- From: Rajasekhar Duddu <rajduddu at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Cc: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:37:28 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Tracepoint Tapset for Memory Subsystem
- References: <20090919050102.GA3767@rajduddu> <4AB90BE0.4030405@redhat.com> <y0mmy4mishg.fsf@fche.csb> <4AB94A1B.4090801@redhat.com> <20090924180817.GA9698@rajduddu> <4ABD3B2B.4020107@redhat.com> <20090930101156.GA3792@rajduddu> <20091002151344.GA9516@rajduddu> <y0mocokgxe2.fsf@fche.csb>
Hi Frank,
thanks for your comments. I am answering for your
questions here and in my next patch I will apply all the possible
changes.
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 03:01:09PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Rajasekhar Duddu <rajduddu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > +/* Function to convert the GFP_FLAGS . */
> > +
> > +function gfp_flag_str:string (gfp_flag:long)
> > +%{
> > +int flags = (int)THIS->gfp_flag;
> > +THIS->__retvalue[0] = '\0';
> > +
> > +#ifdef __GFP_HIGH
> > + if (flags & __GFP_HIGH)
> > + strlcat (THIS->__retvalue, "GFP_HIGH",MAXSTRINGLEN);
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#ifdef __GFP_WAIT
> > + if (flags & __GFP_WAIT)
> > + strlcat (THIS->__retvalue, "GFP_WAIT",MAXSTRINGLEN);
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#ifdef __GFP_IO
> > + if (flags & __GFP_IO)
> > + strlcat (THIS->__retvalue, "|GFP_IO",MAXSTRINGLEN);
> > +#endif
>
> Why no "|" before GFP_HIGH/GFP_WAIT?
All the other Flags (except GFP_WAIT/GFP_HIGH) are composition of
one or the other Flags, and the composition starts with either
GFP_HIGH or GFP_WAIT, so there is no "|" before GFP_HIGH/GFP_WAIT.
> Also, why no "__" before the stringified version?
This I will apply in the next patch.
>
>
> > +#ifdef __GFP_FS
> > + if (flags & __GFP_FS)
> > + strlcat (THIS->__retvalue, "|GFP_FS",MAXSTRINGLEN);
> > +#endif
>
> (How about a macro to generate all these near-identical branches?)
>
>
Sure I will have macro something like this:
%{
#define FLAG_TEST(TYPE) if (flags & TYPE) { strlcat \
(THIS->__retvalue, #TYPE,MAXSTRINGLEN); }
%}
and I will use that in my gfp_flag_str as fallowing.
#ifdef __GFP_HIGH
FLAG_TEST(__GFP_HIGH);
#endif
> > +%}
>
>
> > +/**
> > + * probe vm.kmalloc - Fires when <command>kmalloc</command> is requested.
> > + * @call_site: Address of the caller function.
> > + * @caller_function: Name of the caller function.
> > + * @bytes_req: Requested Bytes
> > + * @bytes_alloc: Allocated Bytes
> > + * @gfp_flags: type of kmemory to allocate
> > + * @ptr: Pointer to the kmemory allocated
> > + */
> > +
> > +probe vm.kmalloc = kernel.trace("kmalloc") {
> > + name = "kmalloc"
> > + call_site = $call_site
> > + caller_function = symname(call_site)
> > + bytes_req = $bytes_req
> > + bytes_alloc = $bytes_alloc
> > + gfp_flags = gfp_flag_str($gfp_flags)
> > + ptr = $ptr
> > +}
>
> Nice. I thought that the raison d'etre for these aliases was to
> abstract the presence or absence of tracepoints, so is there no
> fallback kprobe available? Something like this:
>
Fallback kprobe is not available for other memory functions because
the variables exported by them are will be modified.
>
> > +probe __vm.kfree.kp = kernel.function("kfree") {
> > + name = "kfree"
> > + call_site = "0"
>
> (Note though that this will fail type checking on a non-tracepoint
> kernel -- have you tried it? -- it should be just 0 instead of "0".)
>
This also I will apply in my next patch.
> > + caller_function = "unknown"
> > + ptr = $x
> > +}
> > +
> > +probe __vm.kfree.tp = kernel.trace("kfree") {
> > + name = "kfree"
> > + call_site = $call_site
> > + caller_function = symname(call_site)
> > + ptr = $ptr
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * probe vm.kfree - Fires when <command>kfree</comand> is requested.
> > + * @call_site: Address of the caller function (displayed if available)
> > + * @caller_function - Name of the caller function (displayed if available)
> > + * @ptr: Pointer to the kmemory allocated which is returned by kmalloc
> > + */
> > +probe vm.kfree = __vm.kfree.tp !,
> > + __vm.kfree.kp
> > +{}
>
> Right.
>
>
> > +/**
> > + * probe vm.kmalloc_node - Fires when <command>kmalloc_node</command> is requested.
> > + * @call_site: Address of the caller function.
> > + * @caller_function: Name of the caller function.
> > + * @bytes_req: Requested Bytes
> > + * @bytes_alloc: Allocated Bytes
> > + * @gfp_flags: Type of kmemory to allocate
> > + * @ptr: Pointer to the kmemory allocated
> > + */
>
> Please, no "<command>" markup in there, it is not valid.
>
This I will cange in my next patch.
>
> > +probe vm.kmalloc_node = kernel.trace("kmalloc_node")? {
> > [...]
>
> Why is this marked with "?"?
Kmalloc_node will be called when "CONFIG_NUMA" is defined, so I have
used "?" to make it an optional.
>
>
> > --- a/testsuite/buildok/vm.tracepoints.stp 1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
> > +++ b/testsuite/buildok/vm.tracepoints.stp 2009-10-02 10:59:20.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > +#!/usr/bin/stp -up4
>
> Other similar test cases just use
>
> #! stap -up4
>
This also I will change in my next patch.
>
Thanks
--
Rajasekhar Duddu (rajduddu@linux.vnet.ibm.com),
Linux on System z - CSVT, IBM LTC, Bangalore.