From: Olivier Dion via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH lttng-ust] Add ctor/dtor priorities for tracepoints/events Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:19:18 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87r1tfxx1l.fsf@clara> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1851244021.9798.1594646692671.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > ----- On Jul 12, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Olivier Dion olivier.dion@polymtl.ca wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: >>> ----- On Jul 11, 2020, at 11:29 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote: >>> >>>> Some library might want to generate events in their ctor/dtor. If >>>> LTTng initialize/finalize its tracepoints/events at the wrong time, >>>> events are lost. >>>> >>>> Order of execution of the ctor/dtor is determined by priority. When >>>> some priorities are equal, the order of execution seems to be >>>> determined by: >>>> >>>> a) Order of appearance if in the same compilation unit >>>> >>>> b) Order of link if in different compilation units >>>> >>>> c) Order of load by ld-linux.so or dlopen(3) for >>>> share objects >>> >>> I recall different rules about constructor priorities. Can you provide >>> links to documentation stating the priority order you describe above ? >> >> I haven't found any documentation on that. This is purely empirical. >> Although I'm sure that we can dig something if chatting on GCC's IRC. > > If it is not documented, then I am reluctant on depending on a behavior > which may be what happens today, but may not be the same for past/future > toolchains. Agree. >>> Also, we should compare two approaches to fulfill your goal: >>> one alternative would be to have application/library constructors >>> explicitly call tracepoint constructors if they wish to use them. >> >> I would prefer this way. The former solution might not work in some >> cases (e.g. with LD_PRELOAD and priority =101) and I prefer explicit >> initialization in that case. >> >> I don't see any cons for the second approach, except making the symbols >> table a few bytes larger. I'll post a patch soon so we can compare and >> try to find more documentation on ctor priority. > > And users will have to explicitly call the constructor on which they > depend, but I don't see it as a huge burden. The burden is small indeed. But users should pay close attention to release the references in a destructor too. > Beware though that there are a few configurations which can be used for > probe providers (see lttng-ust(3)). I'm not following you here. I don't see any configuration for provider except TRACEPOINT_LOGLEVEL. What should I be aware of? -- Olivier Dion PolyMtl
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Olivier Dion via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH lttng-ust] Add ctor/dtor priorities for tracepoints/events Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:19:18 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87r1tfxx1l.fsf@clara> (raw) Message-ID: <20200713151918.RW68IL5cy6OMyLSW4lUW8oKXyqTqER5ajaZQPNpD6vQ@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1851244021.9798.1594646692671.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > ----- On Jul 12, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Olivier Dion olivier.dion@polymtl.ca wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: >>> ----- On Jul 11, 2020, at 11:29 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote: >>> >>>> Some library might want to generate events in their ctor/dtor. If >>>> LTTng initialize/finalize its tracepoints/events at the wrong time, >>>> events are lost. >>>> >>>> Order of execution of the ctor/dtor is determined by priority. When >>>> some priorities are equal, the order of execution seems to be >>>> determined by: >>>> >>>> a) Order of appearance if in the same compilation unit >>>> >>>> b) Order of link if in different compilation units >>>> >>>> c) Order of load by ld-linux.so or dlopen(3) for >>>> share objects >>> >>> I recall different rules about constructor priorities. Can you provide >>> links to documentation stating the priority order you describe above ? >> >> I haven't found any documentation on that. This is purely empirical. >> Although I'm sure that we can dig something if chatting on GCC's IRC. > > If it is not documented, then I am reluctant on depending on a behavior > which may be what happens today, but may not be the same for past/future > toolchains. Agree. >>> Also, we should compare two approaches to fulfill your goal: >>> one alternative would be to have application/library constructors >>> explicitly call tracepoint constructors if they wish to use them. >> >> I would prefer this way. The former solution might not work in some >> cases (e.g. with LD_PRELOAD and priority =101) and I prefer explicit >> initialization in that case. >> >> I don't see any cons for the second approach, except making the symbols >> table a few bytes larger. I'll post a patch soon so we can compare and >> try to find more documentation on ctor priority. > > And users will have to explicitly call the constructor on which they > depend, but I don't see it as a huge burden. The burden is small indeed. But users should pay close attention to release the references in a destructor too. > Beware though that there are a few configurations which can be used for > probe providers (see lttng-ust(3)). I'm not following you here. I don't see any configuration for provider except TRACEPOINT_LOGLEVEL. What should I be aware of? -- Olivier Dion PolyMtl _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-13 15:18 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-07-11 15:29 [PATCH lttng-ust] Add ctor/dtor priorities for tracepoints/events Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-11 15:29 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-12 13:49 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-12 13:49 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-12 15:49 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-12 15:49 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 13:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 13:24 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 15:19 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev [this message] 2020-07-13 15:19 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 15:28 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 18:46 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 18:46 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 18:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 18:58 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 19:44 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 19:44 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=87r1tfxx1l.fsf@clara \ --to=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \ --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \ --cc=olivier.dion@polymtl.ca \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).