----- On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Alexei Starovoitov ast@xxxxxx wrote:
> On 3/26/18 8:55 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Mar 26, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Alexei Starovoitov ast@xxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/26/18 8:14 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> ----- On Mar 26, 2018, at 11:02 AM, rostedt rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:30:34 -0700
>>>>> Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> add fancy macro to compute number of arguments passed into tracepoint
>>>>>> at compile time and store it as part of 'struct tracepoint'.
>>>>>> The number is necessary to check safety of bpf program access that
>>>>>> is coming in subsequent patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for_each_tracepoint_range() api has no users inside the kernel.
>>>>>> Make it more useful with ability to stop for_each() loop depending
>>>>>> via callback return value.
>>>>>> In such form it's used in subsequent patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe this is used by LTTng.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and by SystemTAP as well.
>>>>
>>>> What justifies the need to stop mid-iteration ? A less intrusive alternative
>>>> would be to use the "priv" data pointer to keep state telling further calls
>>>> to return immediately. Does performance of iteration over tracepoints really
>>>> matter here so much that stopping iteration immediately is worth it ?
>>>
>>> I'm sure both you and Steven are not serious when you object
>>> to _in-tree_ change to for_each_kernel_tracepoint() that
>>> affects _out-of_tree_ modules?
>>>
>>> Just change your module to 'return NULL' instead of plain 'return'.
>>
>> I never said I objected to adapt the LTTng out of tree code. If there is a
>> solid reason for changing the kernel API, I will adapt my code to those
>> changes.
>>
>> What I'm trying to understand here is whether there is solid ground for
>> the added complexity you are proposing. Is it a performance enhancement ?
>> If so, explanation of the use cases targeted, and numbers that measure
>> performance improvements are needed.
>>
>> How is your patch making tracepoints "more useful" ?
>
> are you arguing about the whole set overall or about a change
> to for_each_kernel_tracepoint() ?
I'm perfectly fine with adding the "num_args" stuff. I think it's
really useful. It's only the for_each_kernel_tracepoint change for
which I'm trying to understand the rationale.
> I'm hearing your arguments as that now changes to all exported functions
> need to be "solid" (not sure what exactly means 'solid' here) to
> justify breakage of out-of-tree modules?
No. Any added complexity to tracepoint.c needs to be justified
appropriately.
>
> re: 'added complexity'...
> - for (iter = begin; iter < end; iter++)
> - fct(*iter, priv);
> + return NULL;
> + for (iter = begin; iter < end; iter++) {
> + ret = fct(*iter, priv);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> + return NULL;
>
> where do you see 'added complexity' ?
> Isn't the above diff self-explanatory that for_each_tracepoint_range()
> can be used not only to iterate over all tracepoints
> (just do 'return NULL') from callback _and_ to find one particular
> tracepoint as patch 7 does ?
I am not arguing about your proposed implementation. I am arguing about
the lack of justification behind this change. Why is this change needed ?
What is it allowing you to do that cannot be done using the private data
pointer ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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
