[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMEtUuyp0q9YSMq7OchEeWLz9oPYd3qQ+0SDV5Pt8F10KLbFpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:36:58 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH tip 0/5] tracing filters with BPF
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> I know that it would be great to have the bpf filter run before
> recording of the tracepoint, but as that becomes quite awkward for a
> user interface, because it requires intimate knowledge of the kernel
> source, this speed up on the filter itself may be worth while to have
> it happen after the recording of the buffer. When it happens after the
> record, then the bpf has direct access to the event entry and its
> fields as described by the trace event format files.
I don't understand that 'awkward' part yet. What do you mean by 'knowledge of
the kernel'? By accessing pt_regs structure? Something else ?
Can we try fixing the interface first before compromising on performance?
--
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