tech-toolchain archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: LLDB/NetBSD extended set of tasks

On 17.03.2017 10:48, Pavel Labath wrote:
> On 16 March 2017 at 21:43, Kamil Rytarowski <
>> I imagined a possible flow of ResumeAction calls like:
>> [Generic/Native framework knows upfront the image of threads within
>> debuggee]
>>  - Resume Thread 2 (PT_RESUME)
>>  - Suspend Thread 3 (PT_SUSPEND)
>>  - Set single-step Thread 2 (PT_SETSTEP)
>>  - Set single-step Thread 4 (PT_SETSTEP)
>>  - Clear single-step Thread 5 (PT_CLEARSTEP)
>>  - Resume & emit signal SIGIO (PT_CONTINUE)
>> In other words: setting properties on threads and pushing the
>> PT> <>> wrote:
>> On 16.03.2017 11:55, Pavel Labath wrote:
>>> What kind of per-process events
>>> are we talking about here?
>> I'm mostly thinking about ResumeActions - to resume the whole process,
>> while being able single-stepping desired thread(s).
>> (We also offer PT_SYSCALL feature, but it's not needed right now in LLDB).
>>> Is there anything more here than a signal
>>> directed at the whole process?
>> single-stepping
>> resume thread
>> suspend thread
>> I'm evaluating FreeBSD-like API PT_SETSTEP/PT_CLEARSTEP for NetBSD. It
>> marks a thread for single-stepping. This code is needed to allow us to
>> combine PT_SYSCALL & PT_STEP and PT_STEP & emit signal.
>> I was thinking about ResumeActions marking which thread to
>> resume/suspend/singlestep, whether to emit a signal (one per global
>> PT_CONTINUE[/PT_SYSCALL]) and whether to resume the whole thread.
>> To some certain point it might be kludged with single-thread model for
>> basic debugging.
>>_CONTINUE button at the end.
> None of this is really NetBSD-specific, except the whole-process signal
> at the end (which I am going to ignore for now). I mean, the
> implementation of it is different, but there is no reason why someone
> would not want to perform the same set of actions on Linux for instance.
> I think most of the work here should be done on the client. Then, when
> the user issues the final "continue", the client sends something like
> $vCont;s:2;s:4;c:5. Then it's up to the server to figure out how execute
> these actions. On NetBSD it would execute the operations you mention
> above, while on linux it would do something like
> ptrace(PTRACE_CONTINUE, 5); (linux lldb-server already supports this
> actually, although you may have a hard time convincing the client to
> send a packet like that).

Right. I also don't expect the LLDB client to export so fine-grained
commands for a user. I don't think that it would be appropriate in C-API
either. Something similar to "set scheduler-lock on" from GDB, with
single-step option sounds fine for my purposes.

I was thinking about a division between setting thread plan and resuming
the execution. We will be back to it once I will be working on threads.

> So I don't believe there will be any sweeping changes necessary to
> support this in the future. If I understand it correctly, you are
> working on the server now. All you need to do there is to make sure you
> translate the set of actions in the packet to the proper sequence of
> ptrace calls. You can even write lldb-server-style tests for that. Then,
> we can discuss what would be the best user-level interface to specify
> complex actions like this, and teach the client to send these packets.

I see, makes sense.

>>> AFAICT, most of the stop reasons
>>> (breakpoint, watchpoint, single step, ...) are still linked to a
>>> specific thread even in your process model. I think you could get to a
>>> point where lldb is very useful even without getting these events
>>> "correct".
>> I was thinking for example about this change (it's not following the
>> real function name nor the prototype):
>>   GetStoppedReason(Thread) -> GetStoppedReason(Process,Thread)
>> The Linux code would easily route it to desired thread and (Net)BSD
>> return immediately the requested data. The need to have these functions
>> in NativeThread (enforced by the framework) is the only purpose I keep
>> them there, while there is global stopped reason on NetBSD (per-process).
> Ok, I think we can talk about tweaks like that once you have something
> upstream. Right now it does not seem to me like that should pose a big
> development obstacle.

It might be similar with hardware assisted watchpoints, but let's
discuss it later.

>     In my local code, I'm populating all threads within the tracee
>     (NativeThread) with exactly the same stop reason - for the "whole
>     process" case. I can see - on the client side - that it prints out the
>     same message for each thread within the process as all of them captured
>     a stop action.
> Indeed, that can be a nuissance. The whole-process events is probably
> the first thing we should look at after the port is operational. I think
> this can be handled independently of the fancy resume actions we talk
> about above, which as Jim pointed out, would be very hard for users to
> comprehend anyway.


>     I'm evaluating it from the point of view of a tracee with 10.000 threads
>     and getting efficient debugging experience. This is why I would ideally
>     reduce NativeThread to a container that is sorted, hashale box of
>     integers (lwpid_t) and shut down stopped reason extension called for
>     each stopped in debuggee.
> I wouldn't worry too much about the performance of this part of the
> code. If you get to the point where you debug a process with ten
> thousand threads, I think you'll find that there are other things which
> are causing performance problems.

I focused on massively threaded applications since the beginning of my
work on ptrace(2). While I expressed my motivations, I don't set this as
my current goal.

The FreeBSD platform is substantially the same as NetBSD except this
nuisance with the whole-process signal. There are mostly accidents with
diverged API.

I would like to upstream all of my local code by the end of this month,
once I will finish FPR accessors and watchpoints. I need to rebase my
local branch to the current trunk and polish for upstream quality. In
this iteration of the Native Process Plugin/Thread/Register NetBSD I
will skip the concept of more than 1 thread and x86 32-bit support.

As of today LLDB/NetBSD is close to be useful as a debugger for a real
job. Breakpoints, single-stepping, backtracing etc work fine.

I keep locally (in pkgsrc-wip[1]) a patchset altering or adding 27
files. Their total length is 3284 lines. I wish I emptied it before
moving on to threads.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index