[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <561C7CDA.8050004@plumgrid.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:39:06 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Kaixu Xia <xiakaixu@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pi3orama@....com, hekuang@...wei.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bpf: Implement
bpf_perf_event_sample_enable/disable() helpers
On 10/12/15 8:27 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> Then how to avoid racing? For example, when one core disabling all events
> in a map, another core is enabling all of them. This racing may causes
> sereval
> perf events in a map dump samples while other events not. To avoid such
> racing
> I think some locking must be introduced, then cost is even higher.
>
> The reason why we introduce an atomic pointer is because each operation
> should
> controls a set of events, not one event, due to the per-cpu manner of
> perf events.
why 'set disable' is needed ?
the example given in cover letter shows the use case where you want
to receive samples only within sys_write() syscall.
The example makes sense, but sys_write() is running on this cpu, so just
disabling it on the current one is enough.
--
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