* Frank Ch. Eigler ([email protected]) wrote: > While varargs simplify some things, it sacrifices type-safety, in that > a handler function would have to be varargs too. For the systemtap > marker prototype, parametrized variants use scores of (automatically > generated) macros, with different arity/type permutations, each > self-describing and type-safe. > The format string could be used to provide some kind of type safety : the compiler will check that arguments match the format string provided. From there, a simple script can parse the format string and generate a function prototype accordingly. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that if the called function has the exact same parameter layout as the varargs caller stack, the function call should work (without the called function having a variable arguments list). > Regarding a marker variant that would require kprobes (inserting a > labelled NOP or few), it may be an appropriate choice where dormant > marker overhead must be minimal and robust parameter passing is less > important. > I even came with the following idea : Instead of using a test + conditional predicted branch, we could jump to an address locate just after the probe. jmp to over_symbol address call_symbol call function pointer over_symbol This way, we could have portable : - direct inconditional jump to an address following the marked site when disabled - Enable stack setup and function call by setting the function pointer and changing the jmp target to be "call_symbol" - Enable "direct jump to arbitrary assembly" by setting the jump target to arbitrary code, where this code can end by jumping to over_symbol. The generated binary on x86 looks like : 10: a1 24 00 00 00 mov 0x24,%eax 15: ff e0 jmp *%eax 17: c7 44 24 04 01 00 00 movl $0x1,0x4(%esp) 1e: 00 1f: c7 04 24 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,(%esp) 26: ff 15 1c 00 00 00 call *0x1c With those symbols : f8875c08 b __mark_subsys_mark1_call [test_mark] (function pointer) f8875620 d __mark_subsys_mark1_jump_call [test_mark] f8875624 d __mark_subsys_mark1_jump_over [test_mark] The macro doing that : #define MARK_CALL(name, format, args...) \ do {\ __label__ call_label, over_label; \ static void *__mark_##name##_jump_over \ asm ("__mark_"#name"_jump_over") = \ &&over_label; \ static void *__mark_##name##_jump_call \ asm ("__mark_"#name"_jump_call") \ __attribute__((unused)) = \ &&call_label; \ static void (*__mark_##name##_call)(const char *fmt, ...) \ asm ("__mark_"#name"_call") = __mark_empty_function; \ goto *__mark_##name##_jump_over; \ call_label: \ (void) (__mark_##name##_call(format, ## args)); \ over_label: \ do {} while(0); \ } while(0) A problem I saw in your approach was that there was no way to remove the function pointer without taking the risk to break everything. The solution I came up with is to set the function to an empty __mark_empty_function when disabled, and set another function pointer to enable it. Any thoughts ? Mathieu OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: [email protected] (Frank Ch. Eigler)
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [MMC] Driver for TI FlashMedia card reader - source
- Next by Date: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Index(es):