LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3
@ 2008-10-24  0:45 Mathieu Desnoyers
  2008-10-28  3:55 ` [ltt-dev] " Lai Jiangshan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2008-10-24  0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ltt-dev, Martin J. Bligh, Steven Rostedt, Ingo Molnar,
	Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, Peter Zijlstra
  Cc: linux-kernel, systemtap, kernel-trace-list

Hi,

Here is why I have been a bit more quiet in the past days. I announce
the release of LTTng 0.44 based on kernel 2.6.27.2. The highlights :

- includes trace_clock() patchset, which will also be posted on LKML for
  review shortly (v2 of LTTng timestamping).

- includes the specialized probes I have been talking about with the
  Google team. This will mainly please Steven who want to write into C
  structures without any marker overhead. Now you have it in LTTng.
  There are restrictions about which types can be written into a
  structure though, as not every types can be exported portably (e.g. no
  bitfields can be used). This is made possible by optionally splitting
  the marker declaration from the marker call to let someone declare a
  marker only to keep track of the associated event types.

  For details, see :
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=37f78b629d1eca204aa7edd282599727b7a8a377

- I created specialized probes for the main events generated by tbench
  and went from 960 -> 1125 MB/s (~2000MB/s without tracing) in flight
  recorder mode. That should please Martin for whom every cycle counts.
  ;) We might want to dissect ltt-type-serializer.o, ltt-relay.o and
  ltt-relay-alloc.o, because almost all the slowdown is located within
  these "core" objects.

  For details, see :
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=0ac863964d4d2877eada0383e62d2021cfca6958

- I have also vastly simplified locking in the markers and tracepoints
  by using _only_ the modules mutex. I actually took this mutex out of
  module.c and created its own file so tracepoints and markers can use
  it. That should please Lai Jiangshan. Although he may have some work
  to do to see how his new probes manager might benefit from it.

  See :
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=7aea87ac46df7613d68034f5904bc8d575069076
  and
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f6814237f7a67650e7b6214d916825e3f8fc1b7
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=410ba66a1cbe27a611e1c18c0a53e87b4652a2c9

So hopefully everyone will be happy with this new release. :)

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3
  2008-10-24  0:45 LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3 Mathieu Desnoyers
@ 2008-10-28  3:55 ` Lai Jiangshan
  2008-10-29 17:40   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lai Jiangshan @ 2008-10-28  3:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mathieu Desnoyers
  Cc: ltt-dev, Martin J. Bligh, Steven Rostedt, Ingo Molnar,
	Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, Peter Zijlstra, kernel-trace-list,
	linux-kernel, systemtap

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - I have also vastly simplified locking in the markers and tracepoints
>   by using _only_ the modules mutex. I actually took this mutex out of
>   module.c and created its own file so tracepoints and markers can use
>   it. That should please Lai Jiangshan. Although he may have some work
>   to do to see how his new probes manager might benefit from it.
> 
>   See :
>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=7aea87ac46df7613d68034f5904bc8d575069076
>   and
>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f6814237f7a67650e7b6214d916825e3f8fc1b7
>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=410ba66a1cbe27a611e1c18c0a53e87b4652a2c9
> 

Hi, Mathieu,

I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.

As an independent subsystem, we should use our own locks. Do not use others.
otherwise coupling will be increased in linux kernel.
I condemn unnecessary coupling.

Our tracepoint & marker had tied to modules(for traveling all tracepoints
or markers). The best thing is that we do not increase the coupling.

[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs.
is helpful for auto-active-tracepoint-mechanism.

		Thanx, Lai.

> So hopefully everyone will be happy with this new release. :)
> 
> Mathieu
> 



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3
  2008-10-28  3:55 ` [ltt-dev] " Lai Jiangshan
@ 2008-10-29 17:40   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
  2008-10-30  3:32     ` [sadump 04308] " Lai Jiangshan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2008-10-29 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lai Jiangshan
  Cc: ltt-dev, Martin J. Bligh, Steven Rostedt, Ingo Molnar,
	Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, Peter Zijlstra, kernel-trace-list,
	linux-kernel, systemtap

* Lai Jiangshan (laijs@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > - I have also vastly simplified locking in the markers and tracepoints
> >   by using _only_ the modules mutex. I actually took this mutex out of
> >   module.c and created its own file so tracepoints and markers can use
> >   it. That should please Lai Jiangshan. Although he may have some work
> >   to do to see how his new probes manager might benefit from it.
> > 
> >   See :
> >   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=7aea87ac46df7613d68034f5904bc8d575069076
> >   and
> >   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f6814237f7a67650e7b6214d916825e3f8fc1b7
> >   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=410ba66a1cbe27a611e1c18c0a53e87b4652a2c9
> > 
> 
> Hi, Mathieu,
> 
> I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.
> 
> As an independent subsystem, we should use our own locks. Do not use others.
> otherwise coupling will be increased in linux kernel.
> I condemn unnecessary coupling.
> 
> Our tracepoint & marker had tied to modules(for traveling all tracepoints
> or markers). The best thing is that we do not increase the coupling.
> 
> [PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs.
> is helpful for auto-active-tracepoint-mechanism.
> 
> 		Thanx, Lai.
> 

Hi Lai,

The approach you propose looks interesting. Please see below to make
sure we are on the same page.

The problem is that when we want to connect
markers/tracepoints/immediate values together, it results in a real
locking mess between

modules_mutex
  markers_mutex
    tracepoints_mutex
      imv_mutex

When we want to take care of a marker at module load, we have to insure
the following calling scenario is correct :

load_module()
  call markers_update_probes_range() (on the module markers)
    call tracepoint register (to automatically enable a tracepoint
                               when a marker is connected to it)
      call tracepoints_update_probe_range (on kernel core and all modules)
        call imv_update_range (on kernel core and all modules)

The current locking status of tracepoints vs markers does not currently
allow tracepoints_register to be called from the marker update because
it would take the modules_mutex twice.

What you propose is something like this :

load_module()
  call markers_update_probes_range()
    call tracepoint_register_noupdate (to automatically enable a tracepoint
                                       when a marker is connected to it)
  call tracepoints_update_all() (for core kernel and all modules (*))
    name##__imv = (i)
  call imv_update_all() (for core kernel and all modules (*))

(*) This is required because registering a tracepoint might have impact
    outside of the module in which the marker is located. Same for
    changing an immediate value.

And on marker_register_probe() :
  call markers_update_probes_range()
    call tracepoint_register_noupdate
  call tracepoints_update_all()
    name##__imv = (i)
  call imv_update_all()

Which basically uses the same trick I used for immediate values : it
separates the "backing data" update (name##_imv = (i)) from the actual
update that needs to iterate on the modules.

The only thing we have to be aware of is that it actually couples
markers/tracepoints/immediate values much more thightly to keep separate
locking for each, because, as the example above shows, the markers have
to be aware that they must call tracepoints_update_all and
imv_update_all explicitely. On the plus side, it requires much less
iterations on the module sections, which is a clear win.

So the expected mutex nesting order is (indent implies "nested in"):

On load_module :

modules_mutex
  markers_mutex
  tracepoints_mutex
  imv_mutex

On marker register :

markers_mutex
  tracepoints_mutex
  imv_mutex

On tracepoint register :

tracepoints_mutex
  imv_mutex

On imv_update :

imv_mutex

So yes, I think your approach is good, although there are some
implementation quirks in the patch you submitted. I'll comment by
replying to your other post.

Thanks,

Mathieu


> > So hopefully everyone will be happy with this new release. :)
> > 
> > Mathieu
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [sadump 04308] Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3
  2008-10-29 17:40   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
@ 2008-10-30  3:32     ` Lai Jiangshan
  2008-10-30  6:01       ` [ltt-dev] [sadump 04308] " Mathieu Desnoyers
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lai Jiangshan @ 2008-10-30  3:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sadump
  Cc: ltt-dev, Martin J. Bligh, Steven Rostedt, Ingo Molnar,
	Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, Peter Zijlstra, kernel-trace-list,
	linux-kernel, systemtap

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Lai Jiangshan (laijs@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> - I have also vastly simplified locking in the markers and tracepoints
>>>   by using _only_ the modules mutex. I actually took this mutex out of
>>>   module.c and created its own file so tracepoints and markers can use
>>>   it. That should please Lai Jiangshan. Although he may have some work
>>>   to do to see how his new probes manager might benefit from it.
>>>
>>>   See :
>>>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=7aea87ac46df7613d68034f5904bc8d575069076
>>>   and
>>>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f6814237f7a67650e7b6214d916825e3f8fc1b7
>>>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=410ba66a1cbe27a611e1c18c0a53e87b4652a2c9
>>>
>> Hi, Mathieu,
>>
>> I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.
>>
>> As an independent subsystem, we should use our own locks. Do not use others.
>> otherwise coupling will be increased in linux kernel.
>> I condemn unnecessary coupling.
>>
>> Our tracepoint & marker had tied to modules(for traveling all tracepoints
>> or markers). The best thing is that we do not increase the coupling.
>>
>> [PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs.
>> is helpful for auto-active-tracepoint-mechanism.
>>
>> 		Thanx, Lai.
>>
> 
> Hi Lai,
> 
> The approach you propose looks interesting. Please see below to make
> sure we are on the same page.
> 
> The problem is that when we want to connect
> markers/tracepoints/immediate values together, it results in a real
> locking mess between
> 
> modules_mutex
>   markers_mutex
>     tracepoints_mutex
>       imv_mutex
> 
> When we want to take care of a marker at module load, we have to insure
> the following calling scenario is correct :
> 
> load_module()
>   call markers_update_probes_range() (on the module markers)
>     call tracepoint register (to automatically enable a tracepoint
>                                when a marker is connected to it)
>       call tracepoints_update_probe_range (on kernel core and all modules)
>         call imv_update_range (on kernel core and all modules)
> 
> The current locking status of tracepoints vs markers does not currently
> allow tracepoints_register to be called from the marker update because
> it would take the modules_mutex twice.
> 
> What you propose is something like this :
> 
> load_module()
>   call markers_update_probes_range()
>     call tracepoint_register_noupdate (to automatically enable a tracepoint
>                                        when a marker is connected to it)
>   call tracepoints_update_all() (for core kernel and all modules (*))
>     name##__imv = (i)
>   call imv_update_all() (for core kernel and all modules (*))
> 
> (*) This is required because registering a tracepoint might have impact
>     outside of the module in which the marker is located. Same for
>     changing an immediate value.

Er, my patch cannot handle updates when load_module().

> 
> And on marker_register_probe() :
>   call markers_update_probes_range()
>     call tracepoint_register_noupdate
>   call tracepoints_update_all()
>     name##__imv = (i)
>   call imv_update_all()
> 
> Which basically uses the same trick I used for immediate values : it
> separates the "backing data" update (name##_imv = (i)) from the actual
> update that needs to iterate on the modules.
> 
> The only thing we have to be aware of is that it actually couples
> markers/tracepoints/immediate values much more thightly to keep separate
> locking for each, because, as the example above shows, the markers have
> to be aware that they must call tracepoints_update_all and
> imv_update_all explicitely. On the plus side, it requires much less
> iterations on the module sections, which is a clear win.
> 
> So the expected mutex nesting order is (indent implies "nested in"):
> 
> On load_module :
> 
> modules_mutex
>   markers_mutex
>   tracepoints_mutex
>   imv_mutex
> 
> On marker register :
> 
> markers_mutex
>   tracepoints_mutex
>   imv_mutex
> 
> On tracepoint register :
> 
> tracepoints_mutex
>   imv_mutex
> 
> On imv_update :
> 
> imv_mutex
> 
> So yes, I think your approach is good, although there are some
> implementation quirks in the patch you submitted. I'll comment by
> replying to your other post.

Hmm, right, the patch <<[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs>>
is quirks for it separate working into 2 steps.

currently, markers and tracepoint abuse RCU and use RCU in a very ugly way.
patches <<[PATCH 1/2] tracepoint: simplify for tracepoint using RCU>>
and <<[PATCH tip/tracing/markers] new probes manager>> had toll us how ugly they
are. if you do not remove tracepoints_mutex and markers_mutex, these two
patches can be applied now. (and if you want to remove mutexs, I will changed
these two patches a little.)

--------------------

Actually, markers and tracepoint are not like immediate-value, we do not need
update markers and tracepoint on load_module(), we can register_module_notifier()
and update them when MODULE_STATE_COMING.

[Quick Quiz 1] why imv_update_all() must called on load_module()?
load_module() will setup parameters, the routine of setuping parameters
will use immediate-value.

sys_init_module:
  load_module
    setup parameters
  blocking_notifier_call_chain(MODULE_STATE_COMING)
  mod->init();

the markers and tracepoint in "setup parameters" will not be actived by this 
approach, it's OK for it's a trace tool.

PS and OT: why not introduce module_param_imv?
a little like this:
#define module_param_imv(name, type, perm)				\
	module_param_named(name, name##__imv, type, perm)
and update them in MODULE_STATE_COMING.

most module param are readonly after initialized.

----------------------------
if you do not like <<[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs>>,
here is the second way:
introduce these five APIs in module.c
module_iter_start()   - require module_mutex and return first module
module_iter_next()
module_iter_stop()    - release module_mutex
__module_iter_start() - do not require module_mutex
__module_iter_stop()

When we have fixed the mutex mess, code changed by this approach are
the least. and we can implement robust tracepoint_iter, marker_iter
by using these APIs.

------------------------------

I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.
you will pay for it when markers and tracepoint become powerful
after you remove tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex. and the
modules guys will condemn you for bring coupling for modules.

	Thanx, Lai.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> 
>>> So hopefully everyone will be happy with this new release. :)
>>>
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
> 



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [ltt-dev] [sadump 04308] Re:  LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3
  2008-10-30  3:32     ` [sadump 04308] " Lai Jiangshan
@ 2008-10-30  6:01       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Desnoyers @ 2008-10-30  6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lai Jiangshan
  Cc: sadump, kernel-trace-list, Peter Zijlstra, linux-kernel,
	Steven Rostedt, Martin J. Bligh, ltt-dev, systemtap, Ingo Molnar,
	Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton

* Lai Jiangshan (laijs@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Lai Jiangshan (laijs@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>> - I have also vastly simplified locking in the markers and tracepoints
> >>>   by using _only_ the modules mutex. I actually took this mutex out of
> >>>   module.c and created its own file so tracepoints and markers can use
> >>>   it. That should please Lai Jiangshan. Although he may have some work
> >>>   to do to see how his new probes manager might benefit from it.
> >>>
> >>>   See :
> >>>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=7aea87ac46df7613d68034f5904bc8d575069076
> >>>   and
> >>>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f6814237f7a67650e7b6214d916825e3f8fc1b7
> >>>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=410ba66a1cbe27a611e1c18c0a53e87b4652a2c9
> >>>
> >> Hi, Mathieu,
> >>
> >> I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.
> >>
> >> As an independent subsystem, we should use our own locks. Do not use others.
> >> otherwise coupling will be increased in linux kernel.
> >> I condemn unnecessary coupling.
> >>
> >> Our tracepoint & marker had tied to modules(for traveling all tracepoints
> >> or markers). The best thing is that we do not increase the coupling.
> >>
> >> [PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs.
> >> is helpful for auto-active-tracepoint-mechanism.
> >>
> >> 		Thanx, Lai.
> >>
> > 
> > Hi Lai,
> > 
> > The approach you propose looks interesting. Please see below to make
> > sure we are on the same page.
> > 
> > The problem is that when we want to connect
> > markers/tracepoints/immediate values together, it results in a real
> > locking mess between
> > 
> > modules_mutex
> >   markers_mutex
> >     tracepoints_mutex
> >       imv_mutex
> > 
> > When we want to take care of a marker at module load, we have to insure
> > the following calling scenario is correct :
> > 
> > load_module()
> >   call markers_update_probes_range() (on the module markers)
> >     call tracepoint register (to automatically enable a tracepoint
> >                                when a marker is connected to it)
> >       call tracepoints_update_probe_range (on kernel core and all modules)
> >         call imv_update_range (on kernel core and all modules)
> > 
> > The current locking status of tracepoints vs markers does not currently
> > allow tracepoints_register to be called from the marker update because
> > it would take the modules_mutex twice.
> > 
> > What you propose is something like this :
> > 
> > load_module()
> >   call markers_update_probes_range()
> >     call tracepoint_register_noupdate (to automatically enable a tracepoint
> >                                        when a marker is connected to it)
> >   call tracepoints_update_all() (for core kernel and all modules (*))
> >     name##__imv = (i)
> >   call imv_update_all() (for core kernel and all modules (*))
> > 
> > (*) This is required because registering a tracepoint might have impact
> >     outside of the module in which the marker is located. Same for
> >     changing an immediate value.
> 
> Er, my patch cannot handle updates when load_module().
> 
> > 
> > And on marker_register_probe() :
> >   call markers_update_probes_range()
> >     call tracepoint_register_noupdate
> >   call tracepoints_update_all()
> >     name##__imv = (i)
> >   call imv_update_all()
> > 
> > Which basically uses the same trick I used for immediate values : it
> > separates the "backing data" update (name##_imv = (i)) from the actual
> > update that needs to iterate on the modules.
> > 
> > The only thing we have to be aware of is that it actually couples
> > markers/tracepoints/immediate values much more thightly to keep separate
> > locking for each, because, as the example above shows, the markers have
> > to be aware that they must call tracepoints_update_all and
> > imv_update_all explicitely. On the plus side, it requires much less
> > iterations on the module sections, which is a clear win.
> > 
> > So the expected mutex nesting order is (indent implies "nested in"):
> > 
> > On load_module :
> > 
> > modules_mutex
> >   markers_mutex
> >   tracepoints_mutex
> >   imv_mutex
> > 
> > On marker register :
> > 
> > markers_mutex
> >   tracepoints_mutex
> >   imv_mutex
> > 
> > On tracepoint register :
> > 
> > tracepoints_mutex
> >   imv_mutex
> > 
> > On imv_update :
> > 
> > imv_mutex
> > 
> > So yes, I think your approach is good, although there are some
> > implementation quirks in the patch you submitted. I'll comment by
> > replying to your other post.
> 
> Hmm, right, the patch <<[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs>>
> is quirks for it separate working into 2 steps.
> 
> currently, markers and tracepoint abuse RCU and use RCU in a very ugly way.
> patches <<[PATCH 1/2] tracepoint: simplify for tracepoint using RCU>>
> and <<[PATCH tip/tracing/markers] new probes manager>> had toll us how ugly they
> are. if you do not remove tracepoints_mutex and markers_mutex, these two
> patches can be applied now. (and if you want to remove mutexs, I will changed
> these two patches a little.)
> 

Yup, markers have a good reason to "abuse" RCU as they do. Tracepoints
inherited from the same behavior as markers, but given they have no
special-case for single probe, they don't have the same requirements
with respect to reaching quiescent states between consecutive
register/unregisters. So your patches are correct.

> --------------------
> 
> Actually, markers and tracepoint are not like immediate-value, we do not need
> update markers and tracepoint on load_module(), we can register_module_notifier()
> and update them when MODULE_STATE_COMING.
> 

Hrm, interesting. And this would happen without modules_mutex held and
solve all our problems, right ? :)

> [Quick Quiz 1] why imv_update_all() must called on load_module()?
> load_module() will setup parameters, the routine of setuping parameters
> will use immediate-value.
> 
> sys_init_module:
>   load_module
>     setup parameters
>   blocking_notifier_call_chain(MODULE_STATE_COMING)
>   mod->init();
> 
> the markers and tracepoint in "setup parameters" will not be actived by this 
> approach, it's OK for it's a trace tool.
> 

that's fine with me.

> PS and OT: why not introduce module_param_imv?
> a little like this:
> #define module_param_imv(name, type, perm)				\
> 	module_param_named(name, name##__imv, type, perm)
> and update them in MODULE_STATE_COMING.
> 
> most module param are readonly after initialized.
> 

Yup, this sounds like a very good idea.

Actually, I'm wondering if we could simply put the marker, tracepoint
and immediate values update code in MODULE_STATE_COMING notifiers rather
than in load_module() ?

> ----------------------------
> if you do not like <<[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs>>,
> here is the second way:
> introduce these five APIs in module.c
> module_iter_start()   - require module_mutex and return first module
> module_iter_next()
> module_iter_stop()    - release module_mutex
> __module_iter_start() - do not require module_mutex
> __module_iter_stop()
> 
> When we have fixed the mutex mess, code changed by this approach are
> the least. and we can implement robust tracepoint_iter, marker_iter
> by using these APIs.
> 

Hrm, finally I think I've got to like the _noupdate APIs, especially if
we can use MODULE_STATE_COMING notifiers outside of modules_mutex
section after module load.

> ------------------------------
> 
> I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.
> you will pay for it when markers and tracepoint become powerful
> after you remove tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex. and the
> modules guys will condemn you for bring coupling for modules.
> 

Agreed. If we can manage to keep them separate, let's do it.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 	Thanx, Lai.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Mathieu
> > 
> > 
> >>> So hopefully everyone will be happy with this new release. :)
> >>>
> >>> Mathieu
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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/
> >>
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2008-10-30  6:01 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-10-24  0:45 LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3 Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-28  3:55 ` [ltt-dev] " Lai Jiangshan
2008-10-29 17:40   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-30  3:32     ` [sadump 04308] " Lai Jiangshan
2008-10-30  6:01       ` [ltt-dev] [sadump 04308] " Mathieu Desnoyers

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).