[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMEtUuxHqpz0ERaKbdciX5p7xwoBrpUK0dFRCHxF_o1PfgKh+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:55:07 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 linux-trace 1/8] tracing: attach eBPF programs to
tracepoints and syscalls
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> Right. I think bpf programs belong to a user process but events are
>>> global resource. Maybe you also need to consider attaching bpf
>>> program via perf (ioctl?) interface..
>>
>> yes. I did. Please see my reply to Masami.
>> ioctl only works for tracepoints.
>
> What was the problem of kprobes then? :)
Looks like I misread the logic of attaching a filter via perf ioctl.
Looking at it again it seems to be a major change in design:
Instead of adding into ftrace_raw_* helpers, I would add
to perf_trace_* helpers which are very stack heavy
because of 'pt_regs'
Ex: perf_trace_kfree_skb() is using 224 bytes of stack
whereas ftrace_raw_event_kfree_skb() only 80.
which doesn't help in my quest for lowest overhead.
And the discussion about soft- and auto- enable/disable
becomes meaningless, since there is no such things
when it goes through perf events.
I guess it means no hooks through tracefs...
Anyway, I'll hook it up and see which way is cleaner.
--
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