On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:55:58 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:36:19PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:40:39 -0300
> > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Adding Masami to the CC list, to see if he can come up with a fix for
> > > the 'perf probe' failure below, improving the message or ignoring
> > > versioned symbols (with a warning perhaps).
> >
> > Thanks. Should we ignore the versioned symbols? or can we put a probe
> > on that? If we have symbol address, we can put a probe on it, even
> > if it is versioned.
>
> Lemme try...
>
> [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -x /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so malloc_get_state_225=malloc_get_state@GLIBC_2.2.5
> The /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so file has no debug information.
> Rebuild with -g, or install an appropriate debuginfo package.
> Error: Failed to add events.
> [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -x /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so malloc_get_state@GLIBC_2.2.5
> The /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so file has no debug information.
> Rebuild with -g, or install an appropriate debuginfo package.
> Error: Failed to add events.
Ah, those cases, perf-probe parsed A@B as function@file...
> [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -x /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so malloc
> Added new event:
> probe_libc:malloc (on malloc in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
>
> You can now use it in all perf tools, such as:
>
> perf record -e probe_libc:malloc -aR sleep 1
>
> [root@jouet ~]#
>
> So here the message is misleading, as we did manage to put a probe on
> 'malloc', but not on the versioned symbol, both when trying to give it a
> different name (malloc_get_state_225) and when doing it directly
> (malloc_get_state@GLIBC_2.2.5).
So, yes, the message is misleading. That should say something like
"malloc_get_state@GLIBC_2.2.5 requires source file(GLIBC_2.2.5) information,
but /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so file has no debug information."
[..]
> > > [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -x /lib64/libc-2.25.so malloc*
> > > Failed to write event: Invalid argument
> > > Error: Failed to add events.
> > > [root@jouet ~]#
> >
> > OK, this is not good, at least it should analyse the reason(versioned)
> > and warn that (Or, I think we can just remove the suffix after "@").
>
> I think it is a matter of replacing special characters with some other.
> I think we should support versioned symbols, i.e. one may well want to
> intercept calls to a specific version of a symbol.
Then, there are 2 issues. Parser and event-name generator.
Parser has to understand that the versioned event to find it from symbol-map
(I have to check but versioned-suffix is not recorded in debuginfo).
Also, event-name generator should handle that. (I think this part is easy
to cut off the suffix)
Anyway, I think that (tracing specific versioned symbol) is rare case,
so for the parser we just need to introduce an "escape" backslash, like
perf probe -x /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so malloc_get_state\\@GLIBC_2.2.5
(note that bash/sh will consume the first '\', so we need '\\'.)
This will allow user to specify version.
[..]
> > >
> > > Masami, this one also doesn't work:
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -x /lib64/libc-2.25.so 'malloc*%return'
> > > Error: event "malloc_printerr" already exists.
> > > <SNIP>
> >
> > Hm, this looks like a collision happens on that event name. "-f"(--force)
> > option allows you to add events with number suffix (e.g. _1, _2, ... )
>
> Probably this was because the same name was used for both entry and
> exit, see below on automatically adding __return to %return probes.
>
> > >
> > > doing it a bit differently:
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -F -x /lib64/libc-2.25.so | egrep ^malloc[^@]+$ | while read function ; do perf probe -x /lib64/libc-2.25.so "${function}_return=$function%return" ; done
> > > Added new event:
> > > probe_libc:malloc_check_return (on malloc_check%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > >
> > > You can now use it in all perf tools, such as:
> > >
> > > perf record -e probe_libc:malloc_check_return -aR sleep 1
> >
> > Hmm, would you think we should add __return suffix by default?
>
> I think so, as it is a common operation to ask for entry+exit.
OK, I'll do that.
Thank you,
>
> - Arnaldo
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > This now makes us have:
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -l
> > > probe:check_stack_object (on check_stack_object%return@acme/git/linux/mm/usercopy.c with ret)
> > > probe_libc:malloc (on __malloc in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_check (on malloc_check in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_consolidate (on malloc_consolidate.part.1 in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_hook_ini (on malloc_hook_ini in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_info (on __malloc_info in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_printerr (on malloc_printerr in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_stats (on __malloc_stats in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_trim (on __malloc_trim in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_usable_size (on __malloc_usable_size in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:mallochook (on mallochook in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_check_return (on malloc_check%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_hook_ini_return (on malloc_hook_ini%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_info_return (on __malloc_info%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_printerr_return (on malloc_printerr%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_stats_return (on __malloc_stats%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_trim_return (on __malloc_trim%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_usable_size_return (on __malloc_usable_size%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:mallochook_return (on mallochook%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > probe_libc:malloc_return (on __malloc%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > > [root@jouet ~]#
> > >
> > > There were some usability snags that prevented this from being put in
> > > place, so do it manually:
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]# perf probe -x /lib64/libc-2.25.so 'malloc_consolidate_return=malloc_consolidate.part.1%return'
> > > Added new event:
> > > probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return (on malloc_consolidate.part.1%return in /usr/lib64/libc-2.25.so)
> > >
> > > You can now use it in all perf tools, such as:
> > >
> > > perf record -e probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return -aR sleep 1
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]#
> > >
> > > Ok, now we can trace this syswide using:
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]# perf trace --no-syscalls -e probe_libc:*
> > > <BIG SNIP>
> > > 339.557 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.562 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda55c23918))
> > > 339.567 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate:(7fda55c1b7b0))
> > > 339.570 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return:(7fda55c1b7b0 <- 7fda55c1f886))
> > > 339.596 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.600 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda55c23918))
> > > 339.622 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.626 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda56ba9a39))
> > > 339.631 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.634 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda578f1713))
> > > 339.637 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.641 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda578f14ae))
> > > 339.657 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate:(7fda55c1b7b0))
> > > 339.661 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return:(7fda55c1b7b0 <- 7fda55c1dbd6))
> > > 339.664 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.667 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda55c23918))
> > > 339.670 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.673 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda55c23918))
> > > 339.678 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate:(7fda55c1b7b0))
> > > 339.681 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return:(7fda55c1b7b0 <- 7fda55c1f886))
> > > 339.685 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate:(7fda55c1b7b0))
> > > 339.688 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return:(7fda55c1b7b0 <- 7fda55c1f886))
> > > 339.693 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate:(7fda55c1b7b0))
> > > 339.696 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate_return:(7fda55c1b7b0 <- 7fda55c1f886))
> > > 339.778 probe_libc:malloc:(7fda55c22970))
> > > 339.783 probe_libc:malloc_return:(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda55c23918))
> > > 339.788 probe_libc:malloc_consolidate:(7fda55c1b7b0))
> > > ^C(7fda55c22970 <- 7fda578f14ae))
> > > [root@jouet ~]#
> > >
> > > It works as well with 'perf record' + 'perf script'.
> > >
> > > Other features from perf can be added to the mix, like callchains, etc.
> > >
> > > But see below for doing it via tracefs
> > >
> > > > I observed below behaviour when I tried as per directions using URL:
> > > > https://opensource.com/article/17/7/dynamic-tracing-linux-user-and-kernel-space#comment-136366
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > echo 'p:<func_entry> ./test:0x420' >
> > > > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/uprobe_events (for creating
> > > > uprobe)
> > > > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/enable
> > > > (enabling uproble)
> > > > There is another enable parameter:
> > > > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/uprobes/enable
> > > >
> > > > I understand unless enabled both events/enable and
> > > > events/uprobes/enable, the /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace is not
> > > > complete. I do not understand the relevance of
> > > > .....events/uprobes/enable as I could not get any trace data in trace
> > > > log for 'func_entry' the user space function being added for tracing.
> > > > Irrespective of the probe function added, the trace log shows complete
> > > > system trace log during the period of execution of the user
> > > > application being traced.
> > >
> > > Is this what you want:
> > >
> > > [root@jouet ~]# cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
> > > [root@jouet tracing]# cat available_tracers
> > > hwlat blk mmiotrace function_graph wakeup_dl wakeup_rt wakeup function nop
> > > [root@jouet tracing]# echo nop > current_tracer
> > > [root@jouet tracing]# echo 1 > events/probe_libc/malloc/enable
> > > [root@jouet tracing]# echo 1 > tracing_on
> > > [root@jouet tracing]# tail trace
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507167: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507172: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507189: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507193: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507198: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507203: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507208: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507214: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507224: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > tail-1581 [002] d... 118484.507237: malloc: (0x7fdb32d67970)
> > > [root@jouet tracing]#
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > > Can this be clearly mentioned as to when to use one of them, role of
> > > > both and and also, I could not see uprobe function in particular at
> > > > all but generic trace in /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace. Kindly guide
> > > > me in understanding uprobe enable logic in user space in detail.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bhargav
> > > > --
> >
> > --
> > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
