On Nov 17, 2007 6:24 AM, Jim Keniston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It'd be helpful to see others (especially kprobes maintainers) chime in
> on this. In particular, if doing kmalloc/kfree of GFP_ATOMIC data at
> kretprobe-hit time is OK, as in Abhishek's approach, then we could also
> use GFP_ATOMIC (or at least GFP_NOWAIT) allocations to make up the
> difference when we run low on kretprobe_instances.
It might cause a problem with return instances having a large value of
entry_info_sz, being allocated in the page frame reclamation code
path.
> > > entry_info is, by default, a zero-length array, which adds nothing to
> > > the size of a uretprobe_instance -- at least on the 3 architectures I've
> > > tested on (i386, x86_64, powerpc).
> >
> > Strange, because from what I could gather, the data pouch patch had
> > the following in the kretprobe registration routine:
> >
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < rp->maxactive; i++) {
> > - inst = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kretprobe_instance), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + inst = kmalloc((sizeof(struct kretprobe_instance)
> > + + rp->entry_info_sz), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> >
> > rp->entry_info_sz is presumably the size of the private data structure
> > of the registering module.
>
> ... which is zero for kretprobes that don't use the data pouch.
>
> > This is the bloat I was referring to. But
> > this difference should've showed up in your tests...?
>
> What bloat? On my 32-bit system, the pouch to hold struct prof_data in
> your test_module example would be 20 bytes. (For comparison,
> sizeof(struct kretprobe_instance) = 28, btw.) Except for functions like
> schedule(), where a lot of tasks can be sleeping at the same time, an
> rp->maxactive value of 5 or 10 is typically plenty. That's 100-200
> bytes of "bloat" spent at registration time (GFP_KERNEL), at least some
> of which will be saved at probe-hit time (GFP_ATOMIC). (And if somebody
> says, "I always use a much higher value of rp->maxactive," then he/she's
> probably not really worried about bloat.)
Ok. Will make the necessary transition to registration time allocation
of private data.
> Yes. If the pouch idea is too weird, then the data pointer is a good
> compromise.
>
> With the above reservations, your enclosed patch looks OK.
>
> You should provide a patch #2 that updates Documentation/kprobes.txt.
> Maybe that will yield a little more review from other folks.
Will incorporate changes to kprobes.txt as well.
- Abhishek
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
