BarnOwl branches that move more of the core functionality of BarnOwl into …">

Made of Bugs

Getting Carried Away With Hack Value

Recently, I've been working on some BarnOwl branches that move more of the core functionality of BarnOwl into perl code, instead of C (BarnOwl is written in an unholy mix of C and perl code that call each other back and forth obsessively).

Moving code into perl has many advantages, but one problem is speed – perl code is obvious a lot slower than C, and BarnOwl has a lot of hot spots related to its tendency to keep tens or hundreds of thousands of messages in memory and loop over all of them in response to various commands.

Unfortunately, one downside of the C/perl mix is that it makes profiling quite difficult. I can run the perl side under NYTProf and get a good picture from the perl side of things, but I've been unsatisfied about my visibility into the C side of things. The main problem is that oprofile and gprof, my usual tools are statistical profilers, which means that if they sample while the code is executing inside Perl, they don't know which C code called it, and so while I can tell if a lot of time is being spent in perl, I can't tell which C functions made the calls that are being slow. What I really want is a deterministic profiler that tracks every function entry and exit, so that time spent in a perl call can be included in the total time of the C functions earlier in the call chain.

After doing some quick googling and finding nothing compelling, I decided to hack up something of my own – this can't be that hard, right?

The tricky part here is getting a way to intercept function calls and returns, so that you can timestamp them and then figure out where the time was being spent. My brilliantly hackish plan was:

  • If you compile your code with -pg, for profiling with gprof, GCC generates a call to the mcount function early in the prologue of every function. Normally that calls out into a function in glibc that keeps stats for gprof, but I can override that with LD_PRELOAD.
  • The next step is trapping function returns. I wrote a quick program that loads an ELF using libbfd, disassembles any text sections using udis86, and replaces any RET instructions with the one-byte INT3 instruction, which generates a debug trap.

I could then make my preloaded library install a SIGTRAP handler, which could inspect the trapped instruction pointer, emulate the RET, and then return.

The two parts work independently, but when I glued them together, I hit trouble. It turns out that gcc -pg dumps some code into the .text section of your binary, that ends up getting called into very early in the shared-library load process – in particular, before my LD_PRELOADed library could install its SIGTRAP handler. Since I had patched those functions to INT3 instead of RET, this crashed the binary with an unhandled SIGTRAP almost immediately.

After some debugging, I was able to resolve that issue by modifying the patch program to overwrite the first byte of the offending programs with a RET instruction (after patching out RETs, of course), so that they effectively didn't get called. Since I'm using gcc -pg only for the mcount calls, I don't want them, anyways.

After about four hours of hacking, I had a working system which could take an executable and run it, generating a trace of function calls and returns as the program executed. As I was settling down to write some code to do something useful with the output, my friend Josh Oreman asked a question: "Couldn't you do this more easily with -finstrument-functions?"

Having never heard of this, I pulled up the GCC info page, and found:

 Generate instrumentation calls for entry and exit to functions.
 Just after function entry and just before function exit, the
 following profiling functions will be called with the address of
 the current function and its call site.

      void __cyg_profile_func_enter (void *this_fn, void *call_site);
      void __cyg_profile_func_exit  (void *this_fn, void *call_site);

Oh. Sometimes it pays to do a little bit of documentation searching before you get carried away with the hack value of your Awesome Solution – someone may have anticipated your problem and written a real solution.

Oh well. It was a fun experiment, and I refreshed my memory about doing evil things with bfd, udis86, signals, and the dynamic linker.

I still haven't yet written the code to turn traces into userful profiling information, but if I do produce a useful profiler tool, I'll post something on this blog.