Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753399Ab0A0J17 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:27:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752547Ab0A0J16 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:27:58 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8768 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751788Ab0A0J1z (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:27:55 -0500 Message-ID: <4B60067B.4060708@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:25:15 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Peter Zijlstra , Jim Keniston , Pekka Enberg , Srikar Dronamraju , ananth@in.ibm.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , utrace-devel , Frederic Weisbecker , Masami Hiramatsu , Maneesh Soni , Mark Wielaard , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP) References: <4B5459CA.9060603@redhat.com> <4B545ACF.40203@cs.helsinki.fi> <1263852957.2266.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4B556855.6040800@redhat.com> <1263923265.4998.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4B56D027.3010808@redhat.com> <1263981472.4283.843.camel@laptop> <4B56F588.2060109@redhat.com> <20100127082440.GA16640@elte.hu> <4B5FFADB.5090209@redhat.com> <20100127090824.GA23570@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20100127090824.GA23570@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3773 Lines: 82 On 01/27/2010 11:08 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> I see it exactly the opposite. Only a very small minority of cases will >> have such severe memory corruption that tracing will fall apart because of >> random writes to memory; especially on 64-bit where the address space is >> sparse. On the other hand, knowing that the cost is a few dozen cycles >> rather than a thousand or so means that you can trace production servers >> running full loads without worrying about whether tracing will affect >> whatever it is you're trying to observe. >> >> I'm not against slow reliable tracing, but we shouldn't ignore the need for >> speed. >> > I havent seen a conscise summary of your points in this thread, so let me > summarize it as i've understood them (hopefully not putting words into your > mouth): AFAICS you are arguing for some crazy fragile architecture-specific > solution that traps INT3 into ring3 just to shave off a few cycles, and then > use user-space state to trace into. > That's a good summary, except for the words "crazy fragile", "trap INT3 into ring3" and "a few cycles". Instead of using int 3, put a jump instruction in the program. This shaves a lot more than a few cycles. > If so then you ignore the obvious solution to _that_ problem: dont use INT3 at > all, but rebuild (or re-JIT) your program with explicit callbacks. It's _MUCH_ > faster than _any_ breakpoint based solution - literally just the cost of a > function call (or not even that - i've written very fast inlined tracers - > they do rock when it comes to performance). Problem solved and none of the > INT3 details matters at all. > However did I not think of that? Yes, and let's rip off kprobes tracing from the kernel, we can always rebuild it. Well, I'm observing an issue in a production system now. I may not want to take it down, or if I take it down I may not be able to observe it again as the problem takes a couple of days to show up, or I may not have the full source, or it takes 10 minutes to build and so an iterative edit/build/run cycle can stretch for hours. Adding a vma to a running program is very unlikely to affect it. If the program makes random accesses to memory, it will likely segfault very quickly before we ever get to trace it. > INT3 only matters to _transparent_ probing, and for that, the cost of INT3 is > almost _by definition_ less important than the fact that we can do transparent > tracing. If performance were the overriding issue they'd use dedicated > callbacks - and the INT3 technique wouldnt matter at all. > INT3 isn't transparent. The only thing that comes close to full transparency is hardware breakpoints. So we have a tradeoff between transparency and speed, and except for the wierdest bugs, this level of transparency won't be needed. > ( Also, just like we were able to extend the kprobes code with more and more > optimizations, the same can be done with any user-space probing as well, to > make it faster. But at the core of it has to be a sane design that is > transparent and controlled by the kernel, so that it has the option to apply > more and more otimizations - yours isnt such and its limitations are > designed-in. No design is fully transparent, and I don't see why my design can't be controlled by the kernel? > Which is neither smart nor useful. ) > This style of arguing is neither smart or useful as well. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/