[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5628423B.4010504@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:56:11 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
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
Hi Alexei,
On 2015/10/21 21:42, 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?
Thank you.
> Actually speaking I don't like it very much
> because the principle of soft-disable is much simpler and safe, but
> if you really like it I think we can try.
--
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