[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522070414.GN30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:04:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ye olde task_ctx_sched_out trace.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:52:46AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index 476f3ebf437e..8d51d7ce3dcf 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -1111,6 +1111,7 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)
> > set_dumpable(current->mm, suid_dumpable);
> >
> > set_task_comm(current, kbasename(bprm->filename));
> > + perf_event_exec();
>
> Shouldn't that be the other way around i.e.
>
> + perf_event_exec();
> set_task_comm(current, kbasename(bprm->filename));
I suppose so indeed.
> Also what about flagging the comm event that corresponds to an exec e.g.
I think it was a mistake to conflate the two concepts, and separating
them into different functions makes things clearer.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists