Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:31:25PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:42:32PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:55:28PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>>>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.h b/kernel/trace/trace.h
>>>>>>>> index 206cb7d..65945eb 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ enum trace_type {
>>>>>>>> TRACE_POWER,
>>>>>>>> TRACE_BLK,
>>>>>>>> TRACE_KSYM,
>>>>>>>> + TRACE_KPROBE,
>>>>>>>> + TRACE_KRETPROBE,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __TRACE_LAST_TYPE,
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> @@ -227,6 +229,22 @@ struct trace_ksym {
>>>>>>>> char ksym_name[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
>>>>>>>> char p_name[TASK_COMM_LEN];
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> +#define TRACE_KPROBE_ARGS 6
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +struct kprobe_trace_entry {
>>>>>>>> + struct trace_entry ent;
>>>>>>>> + unsigned long ip;
>>>>>>>> + int nargs;
>>>>>>>> + unsigned long args[TRACE_KPROBE_ARGS];
>>>>>>> I see that you actually make use of arg as a dynamic sizeable
>>>>>>> array.
>>>>>>> For clarity, args[TRACE_KPROBE_ARGS] could be args[0].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a neat and wouldn't affect the code nor the data
>>>>>>> but would be clearer for readers of that code.
>>>>>> Hmm. In that case, I think we'll need a new macro for field
>>>>>> definition, like TRACE_FIELD_ZERO(type, item).
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean that for trace_define_field() to describe fields of events?
>>>>> Actually the fields should be defined dynamically depending on how
>>>>> is built the kprobe event (which arguments are requested, how many,
>>>>> etc..).
>>>> Yeah, if you specified a probe point with its event name, the tracer
>>>> will make a corresponding event dynamically. There are also anonymous
>>>> probes which don't have corresponding events. For those anonymous
>>>> probes, I need to define two generic event types(kprobe and kretprobe).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Ok. Btw, why do you need to define those two anonymous events?
>>> Actually your event types are always dynamically created.
>>> Those you defined through TRACE_FORMAT_EVENT are only "ghost events",
>>> they only stand there as a abstract pattern, right?
>>>
>> Not always created.
>>
>> Below command will create an event "event1";
>> p probe_point:event1 a1 a2 a3 ... > /debug/tracing/kprobe_events
>>
>> But next command doesn't create.
>> p probe_point a1 a2 a3 ... > /debug/tracing/kprobe_events
>
>
> Aah, ok.
>
>
>> This just inserts a kprobe to probe_point. the advantage of this
>> "simple" command is that you never be annoyed by making different
>> name for new events :-)
>
>
> Indeed.
> But speaking about that, may be you could dynamically create a name
> following this simple model: func+offset
> Unless we can set several kprobes on the exact same address?
Actually, we can...
I thought that someone might want to insert events in the same
address for retrieving more than 6 arguments.
Thanks,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
