From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> To: Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca> 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 11:28:30 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <2029726158.10046.1594654110710.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87r1tfxx1l.fsf@clara> ----- On Jul 13, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Olivier Dion olivier.dion@polymtl.ca wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: [...] > >>>> 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? See sections "Statically linking the tracepoint provider" and "Dynamically loading the tracepoint provider" from lttng-ust(3). It's especially the dynamic loading I am concerned about, because then it becomes tricky for an instrumented .so (or app) to call the probe provider's constructor without dlopening it beforehand, because there are no dependencies from the instrumented module on probe symbols. And given you plan to call this from a constructor, it means the dynamic loader lock is already held, so even if we dlopen the probe provider from the instrumented constructor, I am not sure the dlopen'd .so's constructor will be allowed to run immediately. Maybe one thing that could work for the dynamic loading case would be to: - let the instrumented constructor dlopen its probe, - from the instrumented constructor, use dlsym to get the probe's constructor symbols. - call those constructors. If this is common enough, maybe we would want to provide helpers for this. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> To: Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca> 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 11:28:30 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <2029726158.10046.1594654110710.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20200713152830.paza58PcS4SnkwsezkXCSf-z3bR22yGwiBjgdY-fFZ0@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87r1tfxx1l.fsf@clara> ----- On Jul 13, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Olivier Dion olivier.dion@polymtl.ca wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: [...] > >>>> 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? See sections "Statically linking the tracepoint provider" and "Dynamically loading the tracepoint provider" from lttng-ust(3). It's especially the dynamic loading I am concerned about, because then it becomes tricky for an instrumented .so (or app) to call the probe provider's constructor without dlopening it beforehand, because there are no dependencies from the instrumented module on probe symbols. And given you plan to call this from a constructor, it means the dynamic loader lock is already held, so even if we dlopen the probe provider from the instrumented constructor, I am not sure the dlopen'd .so's constructor will be allowed to run immediately. Maybe one thing that could work for the dynamic loading case would be to: - let the instrumented constructor dlopen its probe, - from the instrumented constructor, use dlsym to get the probe's constructor symbols. - call those constructors. If this is common enough, maybe we would want to provide helpers for this. 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-13 15:28 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 2020-07-13 15:19 ` [lttng-dev] " Olivier Dion via lttng-dev 2020-07-13 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev [this message] 2020-07-13 15:28 ` 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=2029726158.10046.1594654110710.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \ --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).