lttng-dev.lists.lttng.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Norbert Lange 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] Improve tracelog handling, reduce exported functions
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 19:43:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADYdroM_7LVxoe6rQxZvgSqW_97pFd3t2i37NSvuGOmG0H2Lzw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <154847626.52635.1621531127222.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>

Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 19:18 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
>
>
>
> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Am Do., 20. Mai 2021 um 18:25 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
> >>
> >> ----- On May 20, 2021, at 11:54 AM, Norbert Lange nolange79@gmail.com wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> What prevents you from linking against lttng-ust.so again ?
> >> >
> >> > I did not poke around enough with Lttng to be confident it wont have
> >> > side effects,
> >> > I really don't want it active in production. It doesn't seem there is
> >> > much public knowledge with Xenomai either.
> >> > lttng-ust.so will spawn threads, lttng-ust-tracepoint.so is mostly passive,
> >>
> >> There is indeed a split between instrumentation and runtime threads done
> >> with lttng-ust-tracepoint.so vs lttng-ust.so.
> >>
> >> I understand that this split is missing for tracelog and tracef, and
> >> would be a good thing to have.
> >>
> >> I would be interested to move the tracelog and tracef implementation
> >> from liblttng-ust.so to liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so, even this late
> >> in the -rc cycle, because all users of tracelog/tracef need to link
> >> against liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so anyway. So moving these symbols
> >> should not affect anyone.
> >>
> >> Can you give it a try and let me know if it works for you ?
> >
> > Will take some time, whats the timeframe you need for feedback?
>
> Here is the tentative commit:
>
> https://review.lttng.org/c/lttng-ust/+/5927 Move tracef/tracelog symbols to liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so

Well... this is certainly an improvement. I am not completely happy
though: "... users now link against
liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so explicitly"

My homecooked solution currently works like this:

*) define the probes from <lttng/lttng-ust-tracelog.h> with
TRACEPOINT_PROBE_DYNAMIC_LINKAGE,
    link them in the application, together with other dynamic probes
*) build a separate library with *other* tracepoints, lets call it
libtracepoint.so
*) don't link the application to any lttng library.

Which means:

1) the application works without lttng libraries. tracepoints are no-ops
2) if available then liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so is loaded (constructor
function from your headers). tracepoints are no-ops
3) if the application dlopen's libtracepoint.so and in turn
liblttng-ust.so then tracepoints work.

I'd lose option 1 compared to reimplementing tracelog using homecooked
lttng-ust-tracelog tracepoints.

So, are there any issues using <lttng/lttng-ust-tracelog.h> that way,
it seems to work fine,
are there mutliple competing instances now?
(I am not re-using any bit from tracelog.h, I am just after using the
tracepoint definition).

I mean I could dlsym all the functions, but tracelog has 1 per
loglevel and really ugly long names ;)

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

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-20 17:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-20 12:18 Norbert Lange via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 12:18 ` [lttng-dev] [PATCH lttng-ust] Improve tracef/tracelog to use the stack for small strings Norbert Lange via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 14:19 ` [lttng-dev] [PATCH lttng-ust] Improve tracelog handling, reduce exported functions Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 14:57   ` Norbert Lange via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 15:21     ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 15:54       ` Norbert Lange via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 16:25         ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 16:51           ` Norbert Lange via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 17:18             ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-05-20 17:43               ` Norbert Lange via lttng-dev [this message]
2021-05-21 14:55                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-05-25 13:32               ` Norbert Lange 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=CADYdroM_7LVxoe6rQxZvgSqW_97pFd3t2i37NSvuGOmG0H2Lzw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=nolange79@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH lttng-ust] Improve tracelog handling, reduce exported functions' \
    /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

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).