Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1593140 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf/sdt: Argument support for x86 and powepc

Started byRavi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
First post2017-03-06 11:00 +0100
Last post2017-03-06 14:50 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf/sdt: Argument support for x86 and powepc Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-03-06 11:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf/sdt: Argument support for x86 and powepc Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-03-06 14:50 +0100

#1593140 — Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf/sdt: Argument support for x86 and powepc

FromRavi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date2017-03-06 11:00 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] perf/sdt: Argument support for x86 and powepc
Message-ID<thXAS-6lr-15@gated-at.bofh.it>

On Tuesday 07 February 2017 08:25 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Thu,  2 Feb 2017 16:41:38 +0530
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The v5 patchset for sdt marker argument support for x86 [1] has
>> couple  of issues. For example, it still has x86 specific code
>> in general code. It lacks support for rNN (with size postfix
>> b/w/d), %rsp, %esp, %sil etc. registers and such sdt markers
>> are failing at 'perf probe'. It also fails to convert arguments
>> having no offset but still surrounds register with parenthesis
>> for ex. 8@(%rdi) is converted to +(%di):u64 which is rejected
>> by uprobe_events. It's causing failure at 'perf probe' for all
>> SDT events on all archs except x86. With this patchset, I've
>> solved these issues. (patch 2,3)
>>
>> Also, existing perf shows misleading message when user tries to
>> record sdt event without probing it. I've prepared patch for
>> the same. (patch 1)
>>
>> Apart from that, I've also added logic to support arguments with
>> sdt marker on powerpc. (patch 4)
>>
>> There are cases where uprobe definition of sdt event goes beyond
>> current limit MAX_CMDLEN (256) and in such case perf fails with
>> seg fault. I've solve this issue. (patch 5)
>>
>> Note: This patchset is prepared on top of Alexis' v5 series.[1]
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1292251.html
> Hmm, I must missed it. I'll check it...
>

Hi Masami,

Can you please review this.

Thanks,
-Ravi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1593333

FromMasami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Date2017-03-06 14:50 +0100
Message-ID<ti1bs-uP-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1593140
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:23:30 +0530
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tuesday 07 February 2017 08:25 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Thu,  2 Feb 2017 16:41:38 +0530
> > Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The v5 patchset for sdt marker argument support for x86 [1] has
> >> couple  of issues. For example, it still has x86 specific code
> >> in general code. It lacks support for rNN (with size postfix
> >> b/w/d), %rsp, %esp, %sil etc. registers and such sdt markers
> >> are failing at 'perf probe'. It also fails to convert arguments
> >> having no offset but still surrounds register with parenthesis
> >> for ex. 8@(%rdi) is converted to +(%di):u64 which is rejected
> >> by uprobe_events. It's causing failure at 'perf probe' for all
> >> SDT events on all archs except x86. With this patchset, I've
> >> solved these issues. (patch 2,3)
> >>
> >> Also, existing perf shows misleading message when user tries to
> >> record sdt event without probing it. I've prepared patch for
> >> the same. (patch 1)
> >>
> >> Apart from that, I've also added logic to support arguments with
> >> sdt marker on powerpc. (patch 4)
> >>
> >> There are cases where uprobe definition of sdt event goes beyond
> >> current limit MAX_CMDLEN (256) and in such case perf fails with
> >> seg fault. I've solve this issue. (patch 5)
> >>
> >> Note: This patchset is prepared on top of Alexis' v5 series.[1]
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1292251.html
> > Hmm, I must missed it. I'll check it...
> >
> 
> Hi Masami,
> 
> Can you please review this.

Thanks for kicking me :)


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web