[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140925183342.GB6854@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:33:43 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: Userspace software event and ioctl
* Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 08:49 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 15:34 +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> > > > This patch adds a PERF_COUNT_SW_USERSPACE_EVENT type,
> > > > which can be generated by user with PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENTRY
> > > > ioctl command, which injects an event of said type into
> > > > the perf buffer.
> > >
> > > It occurred to me last night that currently perf doesn't handle "write"
> > > syscall at all, while this seems like the most natural way of
> > > "injecting" userspace events into perf buffer.
> > >
> > > An ioctl would still be needed to set a type of the following events,
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > ioctl(SET_TYPE, 0x42);
> > > write(perf_fd, binaryblob, size);
> > > ioctl(SET_TYPE, 0);
> > > dprintf(perf_fd, "String");
> > >
> > > which is fine for use cases when the type doesn't change often,
> > > but would double the amount of syscalls when every single event
> > > is of a different type. Perhaps there still should be a
> > > "generating ioctl" taking both type and data/size in one go?
> >
> > Absolutely, there should be a single syscall.
>
> Yeah, it's my gut feeling as well. I just wonder if we still want to
> keep write() handler for operations on perf fds? This seems natural -
> takes data buffer and its size. The only issue is the type.
>
> > I'd even argue it should be a new prctl(): that way we could both
> > generate user events for specific perf fds, but also into any
> > currently active context (that allows just generation/injection
> > of user events). In the latter case we might have no fd to work
> > off from.
>
> When Arnaldo suggested that the "user events" could be used by perf
> trace, it was exactly my first thought. I just didn't have answer how to
> present it to the user (an extra syscall didn't seem like a good idea),
> but prctl seems interesting, something like this?
>
> prctl(PR_TRACE_UEVENT, type, size, data, 0);
Exactly!
> How would we select tasks that can write to a given buffer? Maybe an
> ioctl() on a perf fd? Something like this?
>
> ioctl(perf_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE_UEVENT, pid);
> ioctl(perf_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE_UEVENT, pid);
No, I think there's a simpler way: this should be a regular
perf_attr flag, which defaults to '0' (tasks cannot do this), but
which can be set to 1 if the profiler explicitly allows such
event injection.
perf-trace might want to set this flag by default.
I.e. whether user-events are allowed is controlled by the
profiling/tracing context, via the regular perf syscall. It would
propagate into the perf context, so it would be easy to check at
event generation time.
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