[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090716104817.589309391@samba.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:42:50 +1000
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
fweisbec@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [patch 3/5] perf_counter: Log vfork as a fork event
Right now we don't output vfork events. Even though we should always see an
exec after a vfork, we may get perfcounter samples between the vfork and exec.
These samples can lead to some confusion when parsing perfcounter data.
To keep things consistent we should always log a fork event. It will result
in a little more log data, but is less confusing to trace parsing tools.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
---
It took me a while to realise this wasn't a bug in some trace parsing
code I wrote, or an issue with samples being dropped :)
Index: linux.trees.git/kernel/fork.c
===================================================================
--- linux.trees.git.orig/kernel/fork.c 2009-07-15 10:00:30.000000000 +1000
+++ linux.trees.git/kernel/fork.c 2009-07-15 10:01:28.000000000 +1000
@@ -1407,14 +1407,11 @@
if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
p->vfork_done = &vfork;
init_completion(&vfork);
- } else if (!(clone_flags & CLONE_VM)) {
- /*
- * vfork will do an exec which will call
- * set_task_comm()
- */
- perf_counter_fork(p);
}
+ if (!(clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD))
+ perf_counter_fork(p);
+
audit_finish_fork(p);
tracehook_report_clone(regs, clone_flags, nr, p);
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists