From: rostedt at goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 21:53:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190506215353.14a8ef78@oasis.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whZwqzbu-=1r_j_cXfd=ta1q7RFCuneqBZfQQhS_P-BmQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 6 May 2019 18:34:59 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:04 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > That iterator does something special for each individual record. All
> > 40,000 of them.
>
> .. yes, but the 'int3' only happens for *one* of them at a time.
>
> Why would it bother with the other 39,999 calls?
>
> You could easily just look up the record at the int3 time, and just
> use the record. Exactly the same way you use the one-at-a-time ones.
>
> Instead, you emulate a fake call to a function that *wouldn't* get
> called, which now does the lookup there. That's the part I don't get.
> Why are you emulating something else than what you'd be rewriting?
>
Ah, now I see what you are saying. Yes, I could pass in what it is
suppose to call. But I was trying to use the same code for all the
alternative solutions we were passing around, and this became the
"default" case that would work with any int3_emulate_call
implementation we came up with.
That is, if we call ftrace_regs_caller() for any scenario it should
work. Even if the call was suppose to be a nop, because in that case,
all the ftrace_ops registered in the iterator would refuse to have
their handler be called for that function.
I sent you a single patch, but that was really just a diff of several
applied patches against your unmodified tree. The last patch implements
the ftrace code. And I had it this way because it should work for any
of the implementations.
I could modify it so that it picks what function to call when the int3
is triggered. I think all the solutions we are down to allow that now.
Some of the early ideas had me call one function for all int3s due to
trampolines and such.
Also, I figured just calling ftrace_regs_caller() was simpler then
having that int3 handler do the hash look ups to determine what handler
it needs to call.
-- Steve
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 21:53:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190506215353.14a8ef78@oasis.local.home> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190507015353.IoG_8FDzOO7A3GXOU1hfRaz99k27SRhCiIVbEhFOni0@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whZwqzbu-=1r_j_cXfd=ta1q7RFCuneqBZfQQhS_P-BmQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 6 May 2019 18:34:59 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019@6:04 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > That iterator does something special for each individual record. All
> > 40,000 of them.
>
> .. yes, but the 'int3' only happens for *one* of them at a time.
>
> Why would it bother with the other 39,999 calls?
>
> You could easily just look up the record at the int3 time, and just
> use the record. Exactly the same way you use the one-at-a-time ones.
>
> Instead, you emulate a fake call to a function that *wouldn't* get
> called, which now does the lookup there. That's the part I don't get.
> Why are you emulating something else than what you'd be rewriting?
>
Ah, now I see what you are saying. Yes, I could pass in what it is
suppose to call. But I was trying to use the same code for all the
alternative solutions we were passing around, and this became the
"default" case that would work with any int3_emulate_call
implementation we came up with.
That is, if we call ftrace_regs_caller() for any scenario it should
work. Even if the call was suppose to be a nop, because in that case,
all the ftrace_ops registered in the iterator would refuse to have
their handler be called for that function.
I sent you a single patch, but that was really just a diff of several
applied patches against your unmodified tree. The last patch implements
the ftrace code. And I had it this way because it should work for any
of the implementations.
I could modify it so that it picks what function to call when the int3
is triggered. I think all the solutions we are down to allow that now.
Some of the early ideas had me call one function for all int3s due to
trampolines and such.
Also, I figured just calling ftrace_regs_caller() was simpler then
having that int3 handler do the hash look ups to determine what handler
it needs to call.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-07 1:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 204+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190501202830.347656894@goodmis.org>
2019-05-01 20:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions rostedt
2019-05-01 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 3:24 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 3:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 16:21 ` peterz
2019-05-02 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 16:29 ` peterz
2019-05-02 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 18:02 ` torvalds
2019-05-02 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 18:18 ` peterz
2019-05-02 18:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 18:30 ` peterz
2019-05-02 18:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 18:43 ` torvalds
2019-05-02 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 19:28 ` jikos
2019-05-02 19:28 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-05-02 20:25 ` luto
2019-05-02 20:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-02 20:21 ` peterz
2019-05-02 20:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 20:49 ` torvalds
2019-05-02 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 21:32 ` peterz
2019-05-02 21:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 19:24 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 21:46 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 21:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 22:49 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 22:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 23:07 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 23:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-04 4:17 ` rostedt
2019-05-04 4:17 ` Steven Rostedt
[not found] ` <CAHk-=wiuSFbv_rELND-BLWcP0GSZ0yF=xOAEcf61GE3bU9d=yg@mail.gmail.com>
2019-05-04 18:59 ` torvalds
2019-05-04 18:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-04 20:12 ` luto
2019-05-04 20:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-04 20:28 ` torvalds
2019-05-04 20:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-04 20:36 ` torvalds
2019-05-04 20:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 22:55 ` luto
2019-05-03 22:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-03 23:16 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 23:32 ` luto
2019-05-03 23:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-02 22:52 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 22:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 23:31 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 23:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 23:50 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 23:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 1:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] " rostedt
2019-05-03 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 9:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] " peterz
2019-05-03 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 13:22 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 13:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 16:20 ` luto
2019-05-03 16:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-03 16:31 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 16:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 16:35 ` peterz
2019-05-03 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 16:44 ` luto
2019-05-03 16:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-03 16:49 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 16:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 16:32 ` peterz
2019-05-03 16:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 18:57 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 18:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 8:19 ` peterz
2019-05-06 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-06 13:56 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 13:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 16:17 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 16:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 16:19 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 17:06 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 17:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 18:06 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 18:57 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 19:46 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 19:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 20:29 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 20:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 20:42 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 20:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 20:44 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 20:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 21:45 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 21:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 22:06 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 22:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 22:31 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 0:10 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 0:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 1:06 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 1:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 1:04 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 1:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 1:34 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 1:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 1:34 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 1:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 1:53 ` rostedt [this message]
2019-05-07 1:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 2:22 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 2:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 2:58 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 2:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 3:05 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 3:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 3:21 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 3:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 3:28 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 3:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 14:54 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 15:12 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 15:25 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 15:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 16:25 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 16:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 15:31 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 15:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 15:45 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 15:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 16:34 ` peterz
2019-05-07 16:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 17:08 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 17:21 ` jpoimboe
2019-05-07 17:21 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-07 21:24 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 21:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-08 4:50 ` torvalds
2019-05-08 4:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-08 16:37 ` rostedt
2019-05-08 16:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 17:38 ` peterz
2019-05-07 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 9:51 ` peterz
2019-05-07 9:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 14:48 ` luto
2019-05-07 14:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-07 14:57 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 14:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 14:13 ` mhiramat
2019-05-07 14:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-07 17:15 ` mhiramat
2019-05-07 17:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-06 14:22 ` peterz
2019-05-06 14:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 8:57 ` peterz
2019-05-07 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 9:18 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 9:18 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 11:30 ` peterz
2019-05-07 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 12:57 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 12:57 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 13:14 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 13:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 14:50 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 14:50 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 14:57 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 14:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 15:46 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 15:46 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 13:32 ` peterz
2019-05-07 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 9:27 ` peterz
2019-05-07 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 12:27 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 12:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 12:41 ` peterz
2019-05-07 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 12:54 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 12:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 17:22 ` masami.hiramatsu
2019-05-07 17:22 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-07 14:28 ` peterz
2019-05-07 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 20:48 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 20:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 15:14 ` jpoimboe
2019-05-06 15:14 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-01 20:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] ftrace/x86: Emulate call function while updating in breakpoint handler rostedt
2019-05-01 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 10:22 ` [RFC][PATCH 1.5/2] x86: Add int3_emulate_call() selftest peterz
2019-05-03 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 18:46 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 18:46 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20190506215353.14a8ef78@oasis.local.home \
--to=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
/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: link
Be 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).