On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 09:24 +0000, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > What I'd like to do is the binary version of ftrace-marker, the text > version is already supported by qemu (see below). > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-04/msg00505.html > > But since that is just a string data (not structured data), it is hard to > analyze via perf-script or some other useful filters/triggers in ftrace. > > In my idea, the new event will be defined via a special file in debugfs like > kprobe-events, like below. > > # cd $debugfs/tracing > # echo "newgrp/newevent signarg:s32 flag:u64" >> marker_events > # cat events/newgrp/newevent/format > name: newevent > ID: 2048 > format: > field:unsigned short common_type; offset:0; size:2; signed:0; > field:unsigned char common_flags; offset:2; size:1; signed:0; > field:unsigned char common_preempt_count; offset:3; size:1;signed:0; > field:int common_pid; offset:4; size:4; signed:1; > > field:s32 signarg; offset:8; size:4; signed:1; > field:u64 flag; offset:12; size:8; signed:0; > > print fmt: "signarg=%d flag=0x%Lx", REC->signarg, REC->flag > > Then, users will write the data (excluded common fields) when the event happens > via trace_marker which start with '\0'ID(in u32). Kernel just checks the ID and > its data size, but doesn't parse, filter/trigger it and log it into the kernel buffer. Very neat, I like it! Certainly useful with scripting. Any gut feeling regarding the kernel version it will be ready for? 3.19 or later than that? > Of course, this has a downside that the user must have a privilege to access to debugfs. > Thus maybe we need both of prctl() IF for perf and this IF for ftrace. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about the solution as long as I'm able to create this "synchronisation point" of mine in the perf data. In one of this patch's previous incarnations I was also doing a write() to the perf fd to achieve pretty much the same result. In my personal use case root access to debugfs isn't a problem (I need it for other ftrace operations anyway). However Ingo and some other guys seemed interested in prctl() approach because: 1. it's much simpler to use even comparing with simple trace_marker's open(path)/write()/close() and 2. because any process can do it at any time and the results are quietly discarded if no one is listening. I also remember that when I proposed sort of "unification" between trace_marker and the uevents, Ingo straight away "suggested" keeping it separate. Pawel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
