| Message ID | 1520358641-7062-1-git-send-email-kamensky@cisco.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | systemtap adding sysroot, cross compiling of user land related scripts | expand |
On 03/06/2018 07:50 PM, Victor Kamensky wrote: > I am a fan of SystemTap and big fan of OE. Systemtap and OE use case I have > on my mind is the following: Hello Victor, even though I'm listed as the maintainer of systemtap, I do not actually use it or know anything about it - my responsibility ends with keeping it up to date and fixing build errors. So I can't comment on the essence of these patches. I do suggest however that you first get as many patches as possible into the upstream, as carrying them in oe-core adds a significant maintenance burden. Also, if it's possible to merge systemtap-utils into the main systemtap recipe (as a binary package), and merge together crosstap and crosstap2, please do that. Alex -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Hi Alex, On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 03/06/2018 07:50 PM, Victor Kamensky wrote: >> I am a fan of SystemTap and big fan of OE. Systemtap and OE use case I have >> on my mind is the following: > > Hello Victor, > > even though I'm listed as the maintainer of systemtap, I do not actually use > it or know anything about it - my responsibility ends with keeping it up to > date and fixing build errors. Fair enough. It is understood. > So I can't comment on the essence of these > patches. I do suggest however that you first get as many patches as possible > into the upstream, as carrying them in oe-core adds a significant maintenance > burden. Yes, it is understood. I am actively working, as we speak, with SystemTap folks on putting sysroot related patches into SystemTap. > Also, if it's possible to merge systemtap-utils into the main systemtap > recipe (as a binary package), I've set to write response why systemtap-utils is really needed and ended up doing below :). Does it look acceptable direction to you? From 808fbe3c4b64c734258da08e92fb367a8a20939b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Victor Kamensky <kamensky@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:33:33 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 08/11] systemtap: create translator packageconfig For cases when systemap module compilation happens on host in cross-compilation mode, and it is desirable to minimize systemtap presense on target we need to have just smallest possible set of utilties that are required to run compiled modules. Introduce new "translator" PACKAGECONFIG, if it is not set it would mean that just minimal set of run-time utilities will be included in the package. For run-time only systemtap build variant use PACKAGECONFIG_pn-systemtap = "" or PACKAGECONFIG_pn-systemtap = "monitor" Suggested-by: Taras Kondratiuk <takondra@cisco.com> Signed-off-by: Victor Kamensky <kamensky@cisco.com> --- meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb | 15 +++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb index 475b207..b280f58 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb @@ -3,9 +3,7 @@ HOMEPAGE = "https://sourceware.org/systemtap/" require systemtap_git.inc -DEPENDS = "boost elfutils" - -RDEPENDS_${PN} += "python3-core bash perl" +DEPENDS = "elfutils" EXTRA_OECONF += "--with-libelf=${STAGING_DIR_TARGET} --without-rpm \ --without-nss --without-avahi --without-dyninst \ @@ -18,7 +16,8 @@ STAP_DOCS ?= "--disable-docs --disable-publican --disable-refdocs" EXTRA_OECONF += "${STAP_DOCS} " -PACKAGECONFIG ??= "sqlite monitor python3-probes" +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "translator sqlite monitor python3-probes" +PACKAGECONFIG[translator] = "--enable-translator,--disable-translator,boost,python3-core bash perl" PACKAGECONFIG[libvirt] = "--enable-libvirt,--disable-libvirt,libvirt" PACKAGECONFIG[sqlite] = "--enable-sqlite,--disable-sqlite,sqlite3" PACKAGECONFIG[monitor] = "--enable-monitor,--disable-monitor,ncurses json-c" @@ -26,4 +25,12 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[python3-probes] = "--with-python3-probes,--without-python3-probes, inherit autotools gettext pkgconfig distutils3-base +do_install_append () { + if [ ! -f ${D}${bindir}/stap ]; then + # translator disabled case, need to leave only minimal runtime + rm -rf ${D}${datadir}/${PN} + rm ${D}${libexecdir}/${PN}/stap-env + fi +} + BBCLASSEXTEND = "nativesdk" -- 2.7.4 > and merge together crosstap and crosstap2, please do that. I added code into crosstap2 to provide backward compatible crosstap legecy invocation interface. I plan to post new crosstap2 code as total backward compatible replacement of crosstap with superseding functionality. The only controvercial item left from my original ask is IMAGE_GEN_COMBINED_DEBUGFS build option that is supposed to build rootfs-dbg containing combined target and debug symbols. Thanks, Victor > Alex > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On 03/09/2018 10:55 PM, Victor Kamensky wrote: > I've set to write response why systemtap-utils is really > needed and ended up doing below :). Does it look acceptable > direction to you? Yes. > The only controvercial item left from my original ask is > IMAGE_GEN_COMBINED_DEBUGFS build option that is supposed to > build rootfs-dbg containing combined target and debug symbols. You can probably repost that as a regular patch. Alex -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Hi Guys, I am a fan of SystemTap and big fan of OE. Systemtap and OE use case I have on my mind is the following: 1) small embedded target image built, because of resource constraint such target could not run full blown systemtap on, it would not have resources to have debug symbols, toolchain, kernel sources, etc installed on target, memory size available to to SystemTap script build, etc 2) on host target image is build with debug symbols available somewhere on the host 3) systemtap operates in cross compilation mode, builds targetscript.ko module, which could be copied to target device 4) on target tiny systemtap runtime, like staprun, stapio, utilities are present and they are used to activate systemtap targetscript.ko and observe SystemTap in action. In fact OE already has scripts/crosstap script that provides similar to above experience. But the scripts one can have with crosstap can deal only with kernel code. If one would like to write SystemTap script that involves user land process probes crosstap script will not work. In part the problem was that in SystemTap itself --sysroot options was effectively broken or never worked. So it was not possible to build user-land related script in cross compiled mode. I worked on SystemTap fixing --sysroot option support and I posted these fixes on systemtap mailing list [1]. Now with --sysroot option support fixed in SystemTap it comes to the question how it could be integrated into OE related engineers work flow. And here I need team's feedback. These patch series implements proposal for such improved SystemTap OE integration, but some parts can cause controversy. Here is patches overview, with indication of my concerns and ask for feedback: Revert "systemtap: Cross compilation fix" Remove previous OE specific patch. It superseded by --sysroot support patch series systemtap: support --sysroot option in variety of situations in cross build effectively [1] integrated with OE, these patches will be discussed with SystemTap guys directly. image: add IMAGE_GEN_COMBINED_DEBUGFS build option this one may cause some controversy. For SystemTap to build user-land related script, it needs target sysroot tree overlayed with debug symbols. OE already has IMAGE_GEN_DEBUGFS option implemented but it produces split target and debug symbols tarballs that have to be recombined. I claim step of recombination is a drug on developer work flow. IMAGE_GEN_COMBINED_DEBUGFS is similar to IMAGE_GEN_DEBUGFS, but resulting rootfs-dbg would contain both target and symbols, so it could be used right away. Also I feel that implementation of IMAGE_GEN_COMBINED_DEBUGFS option might not be very elegant, especially with prelink related issue that changes target binaries systemtap: introduce utils variant of systemtap package build systemtap-utils recipe is special systemtap build that would compile only utilities and have minimal dependencies possible. I considered to split out those utilities on packaging step of systemtap but with dependencies description, it got very messy, so I decided to go with separate conflicting with systemtap recipe crosstap2: wrapper to build systemtap script on host against given target Wrapper script similar to crosstap that take SystemTap script and image name, retrieve rest of required information from bitbake -e command and construct stap invocation with all proper arguments passed needed for cross compilation. Script is implemented in python it has more advanced logic then existing crosstap tool. But one may ask why I did not improved existing crosstap script - I felt that new requirements is too much to be implemented in shell script and in backward compatible mode without breaking historic interface to crosstap. If someone interested in full patch series my OE tree with these fixes is here [2]. It was tested on variety of qemu related machines. Steps that shows how whole work flow OE and SystemTap works are here [3]. Examples of crosstap2 invocations are here [4]. [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2018-q1/msg00069.html [2] https://github.com/victorkamensky/openembedded-core [3] https://github.com/victorkamensky/systemtap-oe-sysroot-manifest [4] https://github.com/victorkamensky/systemtap-oe-sysroot-manifest/blob/master/EXAMPLES Victor Kamensky (5): Revert "systemtap: Cross compilation fix" systemtap: support --sysroot option in variety of situations in cross build image: add IMAGE_GEN_COMBINED_DEBUGFS build option systemtap: introduce utils variant of systemtap package build crosstap2: wrapper to build systemtap script on host against given target meta/classes/image-prelink.bbclass | 13 + meta/classes/image.bbclass | 11 +- meta/lib/oe/rootfs.py | 59 +-- .../systemtap/systemtap-utils_git.bb | 31 ++ ...-short-release-r-option-handling-in-case-.patch | 61 +++ ...-short-release-r-option-handling-in-case-.patch | 68 ++++ ...uginfo-lookup-with-sysroot-case-do-not-re.patch | 97 +++++ ...ay-adding-sysroot-path-to-module-name-in-.patch | 124 ++++++ ...dle-symbolic-links-with-absolute-name-rel.patch | 159 ++++++++ ...p_umodule_relocate-needs-receive-target-f.patch | 58 +++ .../systemtap/systemtap/system_map_location.patch | 23 -- meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.inc | 7 +- scripts/crosstap2 | 422 +++++++++++++++++++++ 13 files changed, 1081 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap-utils_git.bb create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/0001-sysroot-fix-short-release-r-option-handling-in-case-.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/0002-sysroot-fix-short-release-r-option-handling-in-case-.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/0003-sysroot-debuginfo-lookup-with-sysroot-case-do-not-re.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/0004-sysroot-delay-adding-sysroot-path-to-module-name-in-.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/0005-sysroot-handle-symbolic-links-with-absolute-name-rel.patch create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/0006-sysroot-_stp_umodule_relocate-needs-receive-target-f.patch delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap/system_map_location.patch create mode 100755 scripts/crosstap2 -- 2.7.4 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core