[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151022090632.GK2508@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:06:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: pi3orama <pi3orama@....com>, "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
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, 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 Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:19:49PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >Urgh, that's still horridly inconsistent. Can we please come up with a
> >consistent interface to perf?
> My suggestion was to do ioctl(enable/disable) of events from userspace
> after receiving notification from kernel via my bpf_perf_event_output()
> helper.
> Wangnan's argument was that display refresh happens often and it's fast,
> so the time taken by user space to enable events on all cpus is too
> slow and ioctl does ipi and disturbs other cpus even more.
> So soft_disable done by the program to enable/disable particular events
> on all cpus kinda makes sense.
And this all makes me think I still have no clue what you're all trying
to do here.
Who cares about display updates and why. And why should there be an
active userspace part to eBPF programs?
--
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