[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56285410.3060505@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:12:16 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.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 2015/10/22 11:09, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
> What pt_regs would be in such case?
>
Sampling is based on interruption. We can use pt_reg captured by the IRQ
handler,
or we can simply pass NULL to those BPF program.
Thank you.
--
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