[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] tracepoint: Provide tracepoint_kernel_find_by_name
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<> wrote:
>>> +static void find_tp(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv)
>>> +{
>>> + struct tp_find_args *args = priv;
>>> +
>>> + if (!strcmp(tp->name, args->name)) {
>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(args->tp);
>>> + args->tp = tp;
>> I think this runtime check is not needed if it really can't happen
>> (linker verifies that already as you mentioned) although I'm not
>> opposed if you still want to keep it, because there's no way to break
>> out of the outer loop anyway so I guess your call..
> We can change the outer loop and break from it if needed, that's not
> an issue.
>> I would just do:
>> if (args->tp)
>> return;
>> if find_tp already found the tracepoint.
>> Tried to also create a duplicate tracepoint and I get:
>> CC init/version.o
>> AR init/built-in.o
>> AR built-in.o
>> LD vmlinux.o
>> block/blk-core.o:(__tracepoints+0x440): multiple definition of
>> `__tracepoint_sched_switch'
>> kernel/sched/core.o:(__tracepoints+0x440): first defined here
>> Makefile:1032: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed
>> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
> Yeah, as I state in my changelog, I'm very well aware that the linker
> is able to catch those. This was the purpose of emitting a
> __tracepoint_##name symbol in the tracepoint definition macro. This
> WARN_ON_ONCE() is a redundant check for an invariant that we expect
> is provided by the linker. Given that it's not a fast path, I would
> prefer to keep this redundant check in place, given that an average
> factor 2 speedup on a slow path should really not be something we
> need to optimize for. IMHO, for slow paths, robustness is more important
> than speed (unless the slow path becomes so slow that it really affects
> the user).
> I envision that a way to break this invariant would be to compile a
> kernel object with gcc -fvisibility=hidden or such. I admit this is
> particular scenario is really far fetched, but it illustrates why I
> prefer to keep an extra safety net at runtime for linker-based
> validations when possible.
> If a faster tracepoint lookup function is needed, we should consider
> perfect hashing algorithms done post-build, but so far nobody has
> complained about speed of this lookup operation. Anyhow a factor 2 in
> the speed of this lookup should really not matter, right ?

Yes, I agree with all the great reasons. So lets do it your way then.


- Joel

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-27 17:29    [W:0.058 / U:1.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site