Hello Ingo, On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Ingo, please pull from >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/oleg/misc uprobes/core >> >> Mostly pre-filtering. This needs more work and perhaps more functionality. >> In particular, perhaps dup_mmap() should remove the unwanted breakpoints. >> And we can add more ->filter() hooks to, say, speedup uprobe_register(). >> Plus we can do some optimizations to avoid register_for_each_vma() in >> case when we know that all mm's were previously acked/nacked. >> >> Srikar, the only patch you did not ack explicitely is 1fecb96d >> "Do not allocate current->utask unnecessary", but afaics you do not >> object. >> >> And the patch from Josh which exports uprobe_register/unregister for modules. >> Christoph (cc'ed) doesn't like this change, but I disagree. Whatever you >> think about systemtap it is the widely used tool, and uprobes can have other >> out-of-tree users. This is like kprobes, kprobe_register() is exported but >> it doesn't have a modular in-kernel user too. I do not see why should we >> limit the usage of uprobes. >> >> >> >> Josh Stone (1): >> uprobes: Add exports for module use >> >> Oleg Nesterov (26): >> uprobes: Move __set_bit(UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP) into alloc_uprobe() >> uprobes: Kill the "uprobe != NULL" check in uprobe_unregister() >> uprobes: Kill the pointless inode/uc checks in register/unregister >> uprobes: Kill uprobe_consumer->filter() >> uprobes: Introduce filter_chain() >> uprobes: _unregister() should always do register_for_each_vma(false) >> uprobes: _register() should always do register_for_each_vma(true) >> uprobes: Introduce uprobe->register_rwsem >> uprobes: Change filter_chain() to iterate ->consumers list >> uprobes: Kill UPROBE_RUN_HANDLER flag >> uprobes: Kill uprobe->copy_mutex >> uprobes: Kill uprobe_events, use RB_EMPTY_ROOT() instead >> uprobes: Introduce uprobe_is_active() >> uprobes: Kill uprobes_mutex[], separate alloc_uprobe() and >> __uprobe_register() >> uprobes: Rationalize the usage of filter_chain() >> uprobes: Reintroduce uprobe_consumer->filter() >> uprobes: Teach handler_chain() to filter out the probed task >> uprobes/x86: Change __skip_sstep() to actually skip the whole insn >> uprobes: Change handle_swbp() to expose bp_vaddr to handler_chain() >> uprobes: Move alloc_page() from xol_add_vma() to xol_alloc_area() >> uprobes: Fold xol_alloc_area() into get_xol_area() >> uprobes: Turn add_utask() into get_utask() >> uprobes: Do not play with utask in xol_get_insn_slot() >> uprobes: Fix utask->xol_vaddr leak in pre_ssout() >> uprobes: Do not allocate current->utask unnecessary >> uprobes: Kill the bogus IS_ERR_VALUE(xol_vaddr) check >> >> arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c | 4 +- >> include/linux/uprobes.h | 17 ++- >> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 433 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> kernel/ptrace.c | 6 + >> kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 5 +- >> 5 files changed, 243 insertions(+), 222 deletions(-) > > The kernel side looks good to me - but how does 'perf uprobe' > make use of it in practice, how can I test it?
I'm not sure whether you looking into testing specific changes in this pull, but in general, syntax is: perf probe -x /lib64/libc.so.6 malloc perf record -e probe_libc:p_malloc -aR sleep 30 hope this is what you was looking for, Anton. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
