[lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Norbert Lange via lttng-dev]

Hello,

Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
tracepoint is
recorded. For example all of the following:

`lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`

Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
after startup.

As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.

Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
`lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
aswell)
I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
enough.

regards, Norbert
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev]

----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
> tracepoint is
> recorded. For example all of the following:
> 
> `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
> 
> Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
> after startup.
> 
> As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
> would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
> call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
> 
> Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
> `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
> that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
> aswell)
> I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
> changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
> enough.

The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
place to do this I think:

/*
 * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
 * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
 * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
 * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
 * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
 */

It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
them all.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> regards, Norbert
> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
> https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Norbert Lange via lttng-dev]

Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>
> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
> > tracepoint is
> > recorded. For example all of the following:
> >
> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
> >
> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
> > after startup.
> >
> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
> >
> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
> > aswell)
> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
> > enough.
>
> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
> place to do this I think:
>
> /*
>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
>  */
>
> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
> them all.

Yeah, just figured that it doesnt help at all if I do a tracepoint, as
it might just be disabled ;)
lttng_ust_init_thread() sounds right for that, maybe add one or 2 arguments for
stuff you want initialized / dont want initialized over the default.

I take that the downside of eager initialization is potentially wasted
resources (now ignoring any one-time runtime cost).

Norbert
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev]

----- On May 20, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:

> Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>>
>> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
>> > tracepoint is
>> > recorded. For example all of the following:
>> >
>> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
>> >
>> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
>> > after startup.
>> >
>> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
>> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
>> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
>> >
>> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
>> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
>> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
>> > aswell)
>> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
>> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
>> > enough.
>>
>> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
>> place to do this I think:
>>
>> /*
>>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
>>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
>>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
>>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
>>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
>>  */
>>
>> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
>> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
>> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
>> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
>> them all.
> 
> Yeah, just figured that it doesnt help at all if I do a tracepoint, as
> it might just be disabled ;)
> lttng_ust_init_thread() sounds right for that, maybe add one or 2 arguments for
> stuff you want initialized / dont want initialized over the default.
> 
> I take that the downside of eager initialization is potentially wasted
> resources (now ignoring any one-time runtime cost).

I would not want to introduce too much coupling between the application and
the tracer though. The public API I've added for the 2.13 release cycle takes
no argument, and I'm not considering changing that at this stage (we are already
at -rc2, so we're past the API freeze).

I'd be open to adding an extra API with a different purpose though. Currently
lttng_ust_init_thread is meant to initialize per-thread data structures for
tracing signal handlers.

Your use-case is different: you aim at tracing from a context which cannot
issue system calls. Basically, any attempt to issue a system call from that
thread after this is a no-go. I would be tempted to introduce something like
"lttng_ust_{set,clear}_thread_no_syscall" or such, which would have the following
effects when set:

* Force immediate initialization of all thread's cached context information,
* Set a TLS variable flag indicating that the tracer should not do any system
  call whatsoever. The tracer could either use dummy data (zeroes), log an error,
  or abort() the process if a thread in no_syscall mode attempts to issue a system
  call. This could be dynamically selected by a new environment variable.
* Prevent threads in no_syscall mode from calling the write() system call on
  sub-buffer switch (of course the read-timer channel option is preferred).

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Norbert Lange via lttng-dev]

Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>
> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
> >>
> >> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
> >> > tracepoint is
> >> > recorded. For example all of the following:
> >> >
> >> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
> >> >
> >> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
> >> > after startup.
> >> >
> >> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
> >> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
> >> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
> >> >
> >> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
> >> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
> >> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
> >> > aswell)
> >> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
> >> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
> >> > enough.
> >>
> >> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
> >> place to do this I think:
> >>
> >> /*
> >>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
> >>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
> >>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
> >>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
> >>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
> >>  */
> >>
> >> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
> >> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
> >> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
> >> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
> >> them all.
> >
> > Yeah, just figured that it doesnt help at all if I do a tracepoint, as
> > it might just be disabled ;)
> > lttng_ust_init_thread() sounds right for that, maybe add one or 2 arguments for
> > stuff you want initialized / dont want initialized over the default.
> >
> > I take that the downside of eager initialization is potentially wasted
> > resources (now ignoring any one-time runtime cost).
>
> I would not want to introduce too much coupling between the application and
> the tracer though. The public API I've added for the 2.13 release cycle takes
> no argument, and I'm not considering changing that at this stage (we are already
> at -rc2, so we're past the API freeze).

Ok, figured if that's preferred then nows the last chance

>
> I'd be open to adding an extra API with a different purpose though. Currently
> lttng_ust_init_thread is meant to initialize per-thread data structures for
> tracing signal handlers.
>
> Your use-case is different: you aim at tracing from a context which cannot
> issue system calls. Basically, any attempt to issue a system call from that
> thread after this is a no-go. I would be tempted to introduce something like
> "lttng_ust_{set,clear}_thread_no_syscall" or such, which would have the following
> effects when set:

No systemcalls and no clock_gettime().
>
> * Force immediate initialization of all thread's cached context information,

Definitely needed (adding context is often needed I guess)

> * Set a TLS variable flag indicating that the tracer should not do any system
>   call whatsoever. The tracer could either use dummy data (zeroes), log an error,
>   or abort() the process if a thread in no_syscall mode attempts to issue a system
>   call. This could be dynamically selected by a new environment variable.

How this works is than Xenomai will generate a synchronous signal,
which as default aborts. So fallbacks are nice, but error handling
isn't necessary.

Somewhat offtopic, but why is lltng not using __thread for TLS access,
usually I only see this for really old stuff?

> * Prevent threads in no_syscall mode from calling the write() system call on
>   sub-buffer switch (of course the read-timer channel option is preferred).

Yeah, that was part of the last discussion. What would happen without
write notification?
Bufferstate is polled elsewhere too, or will it just be full forever?

Come to think of it, maybe it would be better to add some form of
"tags" to software,
(like a defined symbol or ELF .note section) which could prevent
processes to be traced
if in the wrong mode (no read-timer), or change what work the
lttng_ust_init_thread function
does.

Norbert
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev]

----- On May 20, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:

> Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>>
>> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
>> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>> >>
>> >> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
>> >> > tracepoint is
>> >> > recorded. For example all of the following:
>> >> >
>> >> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
>> >> >
>> >> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
>> >> > after startup.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
>> >> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
>> >> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
>> >> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
>> >> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
>> >> > aswell)
>> >> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
>> >> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
>> >> > enough.
>> >>
>> >> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
>> >> place to do this I think:
>> >>
>> >> /*
>> >>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
>> >>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
>> >>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
>> >>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
>> >>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
>> >>  */
>> >>
>> >> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
>> >> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
>> >> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
>> >> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
>> >> them all.
>> >
>> > Yeah, just figured that it doesnt help at all if I do a tracepoint, as
>> > it might just be disabled ;)
>> > lttng_ust_init_thread() sounds right for that, maybe add one or 2 arguments for
>> > stuff you want initialized / dont want initialized over the default.
>> >
>> > I take that the downside of eager initialization is potentially wasted
>> > resources (now ignoring any one-time runtime cost).
>>
>> I would not want to introduce too much coupling between the application and
>> the tracer though. The public API I've added for the 2.13 release cycle takes
>> no argument, and I'm not considering changing that at this stage (we are already
>> at -rc2, so we're past the API freeze).
> 
> Ok, figured if that's preferred then nows the last chance

Actually I did an exception between rc1 and rc2 when I changed the probe provider's
API and ABI, but I don't expect to do any more breaking API/ABI changes onwards.
We have customers now using rc2 as a stable baseline, and I need a really strong
argument to break ABI at this stage.

Adding features to lttng_ust_init_thread() does not fit in that category. This should
have happened before -rc1 if we wished to do that.

> 
>>
>> I'd be open to adding an extra API with a different purpose though. Currently
>> lttng_ust_init_thread is meant to initialize per-thread data structures for
>> tracing signal handlers.
>>
>> Your use-case is different: you aim at tracing from a context which cannot
>> issue system calls. Basically, any attempt to issue a system call from that
>> thread after this is a no-go. I would be tempted to introduce something like
>> "lttng_ust_{set,clear}_thread_no_syscall" or such, which would have the
>> following
>> effects when set:
> 
> No systemcalls and no clock_gettime().

Right, no clock_gettime because of the seqlock.

>>
>> * Force immediate initialization of all thread's cached context information,
> 
> Definitely needed (adding context is often needed I guess)

Yes, although there are other contexts like the perf counters which fallback to
system calls when direct access to the performance counter registers is not
available from user-space. I wonder whether we want to somehow manage this
or require that the user knows not to use those in the wrong context.

> 
>> * Set a TLS variable flag indicating that the tracer should not do any system
>>   call whatsoever. The tracer could either use dummy data (zeroes), log an error,
>>   or abort() the process if a thread in no_syscall mode attempts to issue a system
>>   call. This could be dynamically selected by a new environment variable.
> 
> How this works is than Xenomai will generate a synchronous signal,
> which as default aborts. So fallbacks are nice, but error handling
> isn't necessary.

Ah ok good, one less thing to worry about on lttng's side then.

> 
> Somewhat offtopic, but why is lltng not using __thread for TLS access,
> usually I only see this for really old stuff?

LTTng-UST works on BSDs, Mac, Cygwin, Solaris and so forth. So we use liburcu's
"tls-compat" compatibility layer for TLS, which uses __thread whenever it's
available in the toochain, else it falls back on pthread keys.

> 
>> * Prevent threads in no_syscall mode from calling the write() system call on
>>   sub-buffer switch (of course the read-timer channel option is preferred).
> 
> Yeah, that was part of the last discussion. What would happen without
> write notification?
> Bufferstate is polled elsewhere too, or will it just be full forever?

Unless the "read-timer" option is set for the channel, the buffer will stay
in full state and the consumer won't attempt to read it.

> 
> Come to think of it, maybe it would be better to add some form of
> "tags" to software,
> (like a defined symbol or ELF .note section) which could prevent
> processes to be traced
> if in the wrong mode (no read-timer), or change what work the
> lttng_ust_init_thread function
> does.

Yes, I suspect those ideas are in the right direction. However, I wonder
how we would deal with different order of:

- dlopen of a .so which has this tag,
- creation of the thread,
- creation of the lttng-ust tracing session and channel setup.

Considering that those 3 steps may happen in any order.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Norbert Lange via lttng-dev]

Hello Mathieu,

Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>
> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
> >>
> >> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> >> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
> >> >> > tracepoint is
> >> >> > recorded. For example all of the following:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
> >> >> > after startup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
> >> >> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
> >> >> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
> >> >> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
> >> >> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
> >> >> > aswell)
> >> >> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
> >> >> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
> >> >> > enough.
> >> >>
> >> >> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
> >> >> place to do this I think:
> >> >>
> >> >> /*
> >> >>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
> >> >>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
> >> >>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
> >> >>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
> >> >>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
> >> >>  */
> >> >>
> >> >> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
> >> >> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
> >> >> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
> >> >> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
> >> >> them all.

Any update on that, is there an list of open points/features for lttng?

Norbert
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Re: [lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

[Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev]

----- On Jul 14, 2022, at 9:10 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:

> Hello Mathieu,
> 
> Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>>
>> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
>> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>> >>
>> >> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
>> >> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Hello,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
>> >> >> > tracepoint is
>> >> >> > recorded. For example all of the following:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
>> >> >> > after startup.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
>> >> >> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
>> >> >> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
>> >> >> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
>> >> >> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
>> >> >> > aswell)
>> >> >> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
>> >> >> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
>> >> >> > enough.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
>> >> >> place to do this I think:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /*
>> >> >>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
>> >> >>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
>> >> >>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
>> >> >>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
>> >> >>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
>> >> >>  */
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
>> >> >> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
>> >> >> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
>> >> >> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
>> >> >> them all.
> 
> Any update on that, is there an list of open points/features for lttng?

Hi Norbert,

You can find a feature wish list for the LTTng-UST project here:

  https://bugs.lttng.org/projects/lttng-ust

One option you have is to implement a patch and send it our way for review. We will
then review it as time/bandwidth allows.

However, if you would like the EfficiOS team to do the implementation, testing, and
integration, please contact us in private so we can discuss our consulting services.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev