Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:39:34 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf probe: Allow user to specify address within executable |
| |
(2013/12/04 10:44), David Ahern wrote: > On 12/3/13, 6:22 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >>> I figured out what you meant by uprobe_events interface yesterday. If I >>> have to go to that interface for even 1 function I would do it for all >>> -- from a user perspective it is just simpler to have 1 command to setup >>> probes. I would prefer that 1 command be perf-probe. >> >> Yeah, but in that case, why you don't ask us adding sym->binding == STB_LOCAL >> in filter_available_functions? :) > > I did in a separate email -- you said because there can be multiple > local functions with the same name.
Yeah, and this still seems to be a kind of workaround for me. The best way to make you requirement enable is to support dwarf for userspace tracing. OK I'll try it.
> But local functions is not the only > use case I need.
What would you like to do with perf probe? Direct address accessing for userspace is not a good way to do, because userspace is relocatable...
> For now I will carry the patch locally. At this point I am 20 patches > deep and have probably another 20 to go. What's one more. I'll come back > to this when I have more time.
Would you have any public git repository for that? And could you share us what would you like to do before sending patch? We can help you to tell the best way.
Thank you,
-- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
| |