On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:13:07 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:43:26 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > I'll hopefully have a prototype ready by plumbers.
> >
> > Why do we need multiple users? It would be a lot simpler if we could
> > just enforce a single user per fgraphed/kretprobed function (and return
> > -EBUSY if it's already being traced/probed).
>
> Because that means if function graph tracer is active, then you can't
> do a kretprobe, and vice versa. I'd really like to have it working for
> multiple users, then we could trace different graph functions and store
> them in different buffers. It would also allow for perf to use function
> graph tracer too.
Steve, how woul you allow multiple users on it? Something like this?
ret_trampoline_multiple(){
list_for_each(handler, &shadow_entry[i].handlers, list)
handler(shadow_entry[i]);
restore_retval_and_jump_to(shadow_entry[i].orig);
}
> > > And this too will require each architecture to probably change. As a
> > > side project to this, I'm going to try to consolidate the function
> > > graph code among all the architectures as well. Not an easy task.
> >
> > Do you mean implementing HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RET_ADDR_PTR for all the
> > arches? If so, I think have an old crusty patch which attempted to
> > that. I could try to dig it up if you're interested.
> >
>
> I'd like to have that, but it still requires some work. But I'd just
> the truly architecture dependent code be in the architecture (basically
> the asm code), and have the ability to move most of the duplicate code
> out of the archs.
I will also do that for kretprobe handlers.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
