[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5628535F.5060505@plumgrid.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:09:19 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: xiakaixu <xiakaixu@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
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 10/21/15 6:56 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>> One alternative solution I can image is to attach a BPF program
>> at sampling like kprobe, and return 0 if we don't want sampling
>> take action. Thought?
>
> Do you think attaching BPF programs to sampling is an acceptable idea?
If you mean to extend 'filter' concept to sampling events?
So instead of soft_disable of non-local events, you'll attach bpf
program to sampling events and use map lookup to decide whether
to filter out or not such sampling event?
What pt_regs would be in such case?
--
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