[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5626C5CE.8080809@plumgrid.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:53:02 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: 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: wangnan0@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pi3orama@....com, hekuang@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] bpf: control events stored in PERF_EVENT_ARRAY
maps trace data output when perf sampling
On 10/20/15 12:22 AM, Kaixu Xia wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index b11756f..5219635 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -6337,6 +6337,9 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> irq_work_queue(&event->pending);
> }
>
> + if (unlikely(!atomic_read(&event->soft_enable)))
> + return 0;
> +
> if (event->overflow_handler)
> event->overflow_handler(event, data, regs);
> else
Peter,
does this part look right or it should be moved right after
if (unlikely(!is_sampling_event(event)))
return 0;
or even to other function?
It feels to me that it should be moved, since we probably don't
want to active throttling, period adjust and event_limit for events
that are in soft_disabled state.
--
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