[ltt-dev] [RFC] New UST 2.0 Tracepoint Event API : TRACEPOINT_FORMAT
Mathieu Desnoyers
mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com
Thu Sep 1 13:33:34 EDT 2011
Hi Brian,
* Cruickshank, Brian (bcruickshank at ti.com) wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
> I think the addition of per-tracepoint format strings and the
> addition of "loglevel" information to the tracepoint API would both
> be very helpful as it will make it easier to migrate from and
> integrate with many existing software instrumentation APIs.
Yep, agreed,
> How would the %s format specifier in the format string be handled?
> E.g. would its use be restricted to referencing constant strings
> (i.e. where the field associated with the %s specifier would be
> logged as an integer value containing the address of the string,
> which the host-side software would be able to use to look up the
> text associated with the string by reading the metadata or the ELF
> file for the application) or is the intent to support dynamically
> allocated strings of arbitrary length (e.g. by rendering the string
> on the target before logging the event)?
CTF at this point does not include any knowledge of the ELF binary
topology. For %s, my intent is to allow saving the strings into the
buffer with the following TRACEPOINT_EVENT TP_FIELDS() definitions:
ctf_array() (fixed-size array of arbitrary integer types)
ctf_array_text() (fixed-size array of arbitrary integer types,
with known text encoding)
ctf_sequence() (dynamically-sized sequence of arbitrary integer
types.)
ctf_sequence_text() (dynamically-sized sequence of arbitrary integer
types, with known text encoding.)
ctf_string() (variable-length string (made of 8-bit
integers), with known encoding, ending with \0)
Eventually, if we decide to extend CTF to allow a new type that would be
e.g. a reference to content within the ELF binary, then %s could
additionally be used to refer to fields of that type for the use-case
you describe. But as currently CTF does not support description of this
kind of type, so it would be rather premature to discuss its implication
on TRACEPOINT_FORMAT().
How does that sound ?
Thanks for your feedback!
Mathieu
>
> Regards,
> Brian Cruickshank
> Texas Instruments
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mathieu Desnoyers [mailto:mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:37 PM
> To: ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca; Nils Carlson
> Subject: [ltt-dev] [RFC] New UST 2.0 Tracepoint Event API : TRACEPOINT_FORMAT
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been informed that support for a per-tracepoint format string would
> be welcomed by many. I would prefer not to make formats strings a
> requirement, but rather an optional feature. I am considering the
> following API:
>
> TRACEPOINT_FORMAT(tracepoint_name,
> "text describing a format string with args like %s and also %d",
> fieldname_1, fieldname_2)
>
> where fieldname_* refer to the name of the fields declared in the
> tracepoint (NOT the tracepoint arguments!).
>
> e.g.
>
> TRACEPOINT_EVENT(ust_tests_hello_tptest,
> TP_PROTO(int anint, long along, char *text)
> TP_ARGS(anint, along, text)
> TP_FIELDS(
> ctf_integer(int, intfield, anint)
> ctf_integer(long, longfield, along)
> ctf_string(stringfield, text)
> )
> )
>
> TRACEPOINT_FORMAT(tracepoint_name,
> "some message %d and more %s",
> intfield, stringfield)
>
> Having some level of automated compiler-level type checking for the
> format string in there might be a nice to have, but might be rather
> tricky, and could change the API slightly as I proceed to the
> implementation.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list