Hi John,

I am the lead programmer for a small team of performance tools writers.  Most of our work is for internal IBMers and we already have an open source project, Performance Inspector, that supports Java profiling.  We recently modified it to use the same system hooks as OProfile that allows end users to run without a kernel rebuild.  This fixed the major objection of our internal users.  I still think it would be helpful to the Linux community if OProfile was able to handle the profiling of JITTed code, but I only allocated a certain amount of resources for this work.  Unfortunately, the person that did the original work has other commitments that must be met and won't be assigned to help out with this OProfile effort again until the other commitments are met.

The OProfile work has taken far more effort than we had originally anticipated and we don't have resources to implement the changes to use libagent. I wish we had the resources, but without significant help from you, we may have to abandon this effort for now.  If someone else could pick up the effort, that would be great.


oprofile-list-admin@lists.sourceforge.net wrote on 04/27/2005 07:16:46 PM:

> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:45:52PM -0600, Scott T Jones wrote:
> > * The op_file_is_anon routine is still being called from
> > libutil++/file_manip.cpp.  Could you please tell us where we should make
> > the changes necessary to remove this layering problem?  We are not
> > sufficiently familiar with the structure of Oprofile to know the best way
> > to do this.
> This won't be necessary with the changes done in the branch.
> I'm disappointed that my comments regarding the agent API have been
> apparently ignored, indeed I consider it a necessary requirement before
> I consider merging this onto the branch. To reiterate: dealing with
> temporary files is not an acceptable interface for agents. Mainly
> because this interface *is* going to change (currently, I'm planning on
> the unix domain socket approach).
> I'd really appreciate:
> 1) a patch with libagent/ as proposed, unless there are particular
>    objections, in which case I'd love to hear them

> 2) a patch against the BRANCH_ANON_MAPPING CVS branch, which already
>    includes the necessary daemon changes: in particular, you no longer
>    need op_jit_vma_to_offset() called from the daemon: all you need is to
>    generate the ELF file with the appropriate path, which is currently
>    something like:
>    /var/lib/oprofile/samples/current/{anon}/usr/jre/bin/java-<tgid>
>    I understand that I've played "moving target" on you a little here,
>    but all this helps bring the feature to what we both require.
>    It should be at most a couple of hours' work, it's mostly moving
>    code about.
> Once we have this, then we'll have a baseline to start from. I don't yet
> think this stuff is finished. Naturally, I'll be happy to include you on
> my thoughts on where the design needs to go.
> > * The User's Guide and HACKING file need to be updated.  However, I do not
> > know where these files are.  I could not find them in the 0.8.2
> > distribution.  Our user documentation will closely resemble the text at
> > the beginning of this note.  Would that be sufficient?
> HACKING is in CVS. The user guide is doc/oprofile.xml. The above would
> be a start, but we should mention restrictions etc.
> > * There are 42 occurrences of camelCase labels in op_jan.c, all of which
> > were defined in jvmpi.h and are out of our control.  I can easily add
> > these to the camel_ok array in check_style.py, but I did not know how I
> > should include that in the patch.
> I'll handle that.
> > * We only support a version of Java which matches Oprofile in 32/64-bits.
> > The common routines that we call in libop.a must be called from both the
> > daemon and java.  To do otherwise would require building unique 32 and
> > 64-bit version of libop.a.
> We can revisit this.
> > * The decision of how to define X_ARCH and X_MACH to call
> > bfd_set_arch_mach is still being made in op_jdl_internal.h.  We do not
> > know of a better way to do this.
> Fine - the defines should probably go into bfd_support.h then, where we
> hide all the BFD gunk.
> > * How do I demand the existence of PATH_MAX in the headers?  Isn't that
> > what I am doing with the #ifndef?
> Just #include <limits.h>, that's all you need.
> > * The developer intended the data marked as "JIT logger instance data" to
> > be unique per process and does not think it should be static.
> This makes no sense. ~Is there some particular reason that I'm not
> actually speaking directly to the people responsible for the work?
> > * basename(x) treats x as a char const *, so this is not a problem.
> Whilst this may be currently true, it's obscenely ugly to be passing a
> truly const string to a non-const interface.
> regards
> john
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans!
> Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net
> Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey
> Click here to start!  http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix
> _______________________________________________
> oprofile-list mailing list
> oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list