[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130113115.GA6565@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:31:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Steets <asteets@...advisors.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: perf: prctl(PR_TASK_PERF_EVENTS_DISABLE) has no effect
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So, what workflow are you suggesting to Andrew?
>
> Librarize perf record, then in your code do something like:
>
> #include "perf_record.h"
Maybe. (and then it shouldnt be limited to perf_record.h but
should be events.h plus libevents.so or such)
>
> handle = perf_record_init(); /* creates perf events and creates
> a record thread that writes samples
> to perf.data, consumes env(PERF_*)
> for configuration, registers with
> at_exit() for cleanup */
> if (!handle)
> /* burn */
>
> /* do you other code */
>
> perf_record_start(handle);
>
> /* do the bit you want profiled */
>
> perf_record_stop(handle);
>
> Then build with -lperfrecord or so. Not too hard, right?
Isnt a simple prctl() so much easier and faster?
What's your concern with the prctl()? This would arguably be the
right kind of usage for prctl(): it's an established API/ABI for
process/task-wide settings.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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