Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 08:58:59 -0400 From: George Neville-Neil <gnn@freebsd.org> To: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-dtrace@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] reworking FreeBSD's SDT implementation Message-ID: <1BF6D495-5C7E-4FC3-B5A7-BB47C3D2D7F8@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130705032536.GA1570@charmander> References: <20130703041023.GA82673@raichu> <20130705032536.GA1570@charmander>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 4, 2013, at 23:25 , Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:10:23AM -0400, Mark Johnston wrote: >> Hello, >> >> There are a few problems with the way SDT is currently implemented in >> FreeBSD. First, the DTrace framework isn't notified when modules are >> unloaded, so any probes created by these modules are never destroyed >> (this problem isn't specific to SDT though, FBT probes have the same >> problem). Second, there is currently nothing preventing one from >> unloading a module while some of its SDT probes are enabled; doing this >> will generally cause a panic. Finally, providers are "tied" to modules >> in the sense that dtrace_unregister() is called on each provider >> declared in a module when that module is unloaded. This is inflexible - >> probes already have a "module" field to indicate which module they're >> defined in, and it would restrict the implementation of, say, a >> hypothetical GEOM or netgraph provider, which would probably contain >> some common probes for each GEOM or netgraph module. Plus a panic will >> occur if a probe from one module is enabled and a second module >> declaring the provider of the probe is unloaded. >> >> I have a patch at [1] which tries to solve all of these problems. It >> more or less completely reworks FreeBSD's SDT implementation (currently >> contained in kern/kern_sdt.c and cddl/dev/sdt/sdt.c) and changes a >> number of things: >> >> [...] >> >> I'm also writing a man page for the SDT macros so that there's some >> guidance on how to create SDT probes and providers. > > I've copied a draft SDT man page below. Any > suggestions/corrections/comments/criticisms are most welcome. > > I would also like to have man pages for individual providers, but this > is a start. :) Hello Mark, Sorry to take to long to reply. I think your approach to SDTs is sound and we should move forward with that, in particular as you say it brings us closer to the implementation ideas in Solaris. I will try to test your patch on HEAD today and let you know if I have any problems with it. In the meantime feel free to test and commit it on your own, don't wait for me. The man page also looks good. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1BF6D495-5C7E-4FC3-B5A7-BB47C3D2D7F8>