[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140314104100.GR27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:41:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/11] perf: Allow for multiple ring buffers per event
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:02:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/17/2014 06:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Then write the PERF_RECORD_DATA structure into the normal ring-buffer
> > location; set data_offset to point to the first page boundary, data_size
> > to 1mb.
> >
> > Then frob things such that perf_mmap_to_page() for the next 1mb of pages
> > points to your buffer pages and wipe the page-table entries.
>
> Wouldn't we have to teach a ton of code how to be IRQ safe for this to
> work? Just step one: how do we go modifying page tables safely from an
> interrupt? mm->page_table_lock is a plain non-irq spinlock.
One could modify existing page tables the same way we do the lockless
lookup for GUP. But instead of doing the get_page() we do a pte
modification.
But I suppose we can push all that to task context by having the polling
task do it before it gets to userspace again.
--
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