From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
To: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: [RFC 0/2 gdbserver] Compute 'traceframe usage' per tracepoint
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1355276266-23163-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> (raw)
Hi,
I happen to see that field 'traceframe_usage' in tracepoint in GDB is
always zero, because its value is from GDBserver and GDBserver doesn't
get a correct one of 'traceframe_usage'. The 'traceframe usage' is
always zero when 'traceframe_usage' was added in this patch,
[PATCH v2] Tracing notes and metadata
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-11/msg00484.html
The patch 2/2 fixes this problem by computing the traceframe usage when
replying to packet 'qTP'.
The other approach of fixing this problem
is to continue to use field 'traceframe_usage' of 'struct tracepoint'
and accumulate it when adding a block to a traceframe
(in add_traceframe_block). Each 'traceframe' has the number of
tracepoint, but it is not a good way to iterate the tracepoint list
to find the right tracepoint and increment its field
'traceframe_usuage' inside add_traceframe_block, which should be done
as fast it could be. Then, I thought that we may use pointer to
'struct tracepoint' instead of tracepoint num in 'struct traceframe',
but comments of 'struct traceframe' tell me that I shouldn't do this,
"This object should be as small as possible". If we don't mind
increasing 2 bytes (on 32-bit target) for each 'struct traceframe',
I am OK to replace 'tpnum' with a pointer to 'struct tracepoint',
and post the patches in the other approach.
If we follow the approach of this patch, that means we don't need
the field 'traceframe_usage' in 'struct tracepoint' in GDBserver,
and we can remove it. What do you think?
Test case: check traceframe_usage.
Compute traceframe usuage per tracepoint on demand.
gdb/gdbserver/tracepoint.c | 12 ++++++++-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/disconnected-tracing.c | 8 ++++++
gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/disconnected-tracing.exp | 29 ++++++++++++++++++----
gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/infotrace.exp | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--
1.7.7.6
next reply other threads:[~2012-12-12 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-12 1:37 Yao Qi [this message]
2012-12-12 1:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] Compute traceframe usuage per tracepoint on demand Yao Qi
2012-12-17 9:21 ` Yao Qi
2013-01-07 15:39 ` Pedro Alves
2013-01-07 15:56 ` Pedro Alves
2012-12-12 1:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] Test case: check traceframe_usage Yao Qi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1355276266-23163-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com \
--to=yao@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox