[lttng-dev] reading context fields causes syscalls

Norbert Lange nolange79 at gmail.com
Thu May 20 08:46:16 EDT 2021

Am Mi., 19. Mai 2021 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>:
> ----- On May 19, 2021, at 8:11 AM, lttng-dev lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Several context fields will cause a syscall atleast the first time a
> > tracepoint is
> > recorded. For example all of the following:
> >
> > `lttng add-context -c chan --userspace --type=vpid --type=vtid --type=procname`
> >
> > Each of them seems cached in TLS however, and most should never change
> > after startup.
> >
> > As I am using Lttng over Xenomai, syscalls are strictly forbidden, I
> > would like to have some function that prepares all data, which I can
> > call on each thread before it switches to realtime work.
> >
> > Kinda similar to urcu_bp_register_thread, I'd like to have some
> > `lttng_ust_warmup_thread` function that fetches the context values
> > that can be cached. (urcu_bp_register_thread should be called there
> > aswell)
> > I considered just doing a tracepoint, but AFAIK the channel can be
> > changed/configured after the process is running. So this is not robust
> > enough.
> The new lttng_ust_init_thread() API in lttng-ust 2.13 would be the right
> place to do this I think:
> /*
>  * Initialize this thread's LTTng-UST data structures. There is
>  * typically no need to call this, because LTTng-UST initializes its
>  * per-thread data structures lazily, but it should be called explicitly
>  * upon creation of each thread before signal handlers nesting over
>  * those threads use LTTng-UST tracepoints.
>  */
> It would make sense that this new initialization helper also initializes
> all contexts which cache the result of a system call. Considering that
> contexts can be used from the filter and capture bytecode interpreter, as
> well as contexts added to channels, I think we'd need to simply initialize
> them all.

Yeah, just figured that it doesnt help at all if I do a tracepoint, as
it might just be disabled ;)
lttng_ust_init_thread() sounds right for that, maybe add one or 2 arguments for
stuff you want initialized / dont want initialized over the default.

I take that the downside of eager initialization is potentially wasted
resources (now ignoring any one-time runtime cost).


More information about the lttng-dev mailing list