Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.11 for 2.6.17

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I could declare my jump_select_label directly in assembly then.
>   

Maybe, but it could be tricky to make that label visible to C code.

> > > +call_label: \
> > > +		asm volatile ("" : : ); \
> > > +		MARK_CALL(name, format, ## args); \
> > > +		asm volatile ("" : : ); \
> > > +over_label: \
> > > +		asm volatile ("" : : ); \
> > >  
> > >       
> > These asm volatiles won't do anything at all. What are you trying to 
> > achieve?
> >     
>
> I want to make sure that the call_label's address will be exactly after the 2nd
> byte of the jump instruction. The over_label does not really matter, as long as
> it points to a correct spot in the execution flow. The most important is that
> it stays near the jump instruction.
>   

The "volatile" modifier for "asm" *only* means that the asm emitted if 
the code is reachable at all; it doesn't make any constraints about 
relative ordering of the various asm volatile statement with respect to 
each other, or with respect to other code.

> I could probably do all this in assembly too.
>   

Perhaps, though doing as much as possible visible to gcc has its 
benefits.  Tricky either way.

> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS
> > > +#define MARK(name, format, args...) \
> > > +	do { \
> > > +		__label__ here; \
> > > +here:   	asm volatile(	".section .markers, \"a\";\n\t" \
> > > +				".long %0, %1;\n\t" \
> > > +				".previous;\n\t" : : \
> > > +			"m" (*(#name)), \
> > > +			"m" (*&&here)); \
> > >  
> > >       
> > Seems like a bad idea that MARK() can put one type of record in 
> > .markers, but MARK_JUMP and MARK_CALL can put different records in the 
> > same section? How do you distinguish them? Or are they certain to be 
> > exclusive? Either way, I'd probably put different mark records in 
> > different sections: .markers.jump, .markers.call, markers.labels. And 
> > define appropriate structures for the record types in each section.
> >
> >     
>
>
> struct __mark_marker {
>         const char *name;
>         const void *location;
>         char *select;
>         const void *jump_call;
>         const void *jump_over;
>         marker_probe_func **call;
>         const char *format;
> };
>
> is the structure which defines a complete record in the mark section. They are
> all tied to the same marker site, so I think it makes sense to keep them in the
> same record.
>   

I don't understand.  Your asms put things into the marker section with 
".long A, B, C".  Does does that correspond to this structure?

> Right, well, I wanted to keep a generic caller and try to make assumptions about
> the stack layout in the called function but if there is now way to do this, we
> can think of using the varargs in the probe.
>   

i386 is about the only architecture which uses the stack for calls by 
default.

   J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/