[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273690142.1626.158.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 20:49:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Pierre Tardy <tardyp@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...radead.org,
ziga.mahkovec@...il.com, davem <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Perf and ftrace [was Re: PyTimechart]
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 14:37 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 14:04 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Can't we keep multiple references to each page ? (shared page) so it's still in
> > > the buffer, also accessed by mmap(), and in addition accessed by splice.
> >
> > I'm not sure, the problem seems to be that a splice-consumer might want
> > to inject the page into a whole different address-space, over-writing
> > page->mapping/->index etc.
>
> OK, I see. In LTTng, I dropped the mmap() support when I integrated splice(). In
> both case, I can share the pages between the "output" (mmap or splice) and the
> ring buffer because my ring buffer does not care about
> page->mapping/->index/etc, so I never have to swap them.
>
> However, doing mmap() and splice() at the same time on the same pages seems
> problematic for the reason you point out here (and not very useful anyway).
> But I think restrictions could be done more transparently than what you propose,
> e.g.:
>
> 1) create buffer -> return fd
> (perform pfn alignment for the architecture worse-case, e.g. support mmap()
> on sparc)
>
> 2a) mmap(fd)
> return -EBUSY if any of the pages has non-NULL mapping.
> 3a) munmap(fd)
>
> 2b) splice(fd)
> return -EBUSY if any of the pages has non-NULL mapping.
>
> 2c) read(fd)
> Could probably be done concurrently with splice() or mmap().
>
> This way we would ensure that only mmap or splice is used on the buffer at a
> given time without crippling the API.
>
> Thoughts ?
Right, so the problem is that we now use mmap() to size the buffer. I
guess we could go adding a size attribute to perf_event_attr, but I
think its makes more sense to separate the actual event and the output
buffer objects.
--
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