[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56CD0FC4.3070305@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:04:52 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Cody P Schafer <dev@...yps.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Jérémie Galarneau
<jeremie.galarneau@...icios.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kirill Smelkov <kirr@...edi.com>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <pi3orama@....com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/48] perf tools: Introduce bpf-output event
On 2016/2/24 9:58, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>
>
> On 2016/2/24 1:45, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:10:37AM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu:
>>> Commit a43eec304259a6c637f4014a6d4767159b6a3aa3 (bpf: introduce
>>> bpf_perf_event_output() helper) add a helper to enable BPF program
>>> output data to perf ring buffer through a new type of perf event
>>> PERF_COUNT_SW_BPF_OUTPUT. This patch enable perf to create perf
>>> event of that type. Now perf user can use following cmdline to
>>> receive output data from BPF programs:
>>>
>>> # ./perf record -a -e bpf-output/no-inherit,name=evt/ \
>>> -e ./test_bpf_output.c/map:channel.event=evt/ ls /
>>> # ./perf script
>>> perf 1560 [004] 347747.086295:
>>> evt: ffffffff811fd201 sys_write ...
>>> perf 1560 [004] 347747.086300:
>>> evt: ffffffff811fd201 sys_write ...
>>> perf 1560 [004] 347747.086315:
>>> evt: ffffffff811fd201 sys_write ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Test result:
>>> # cat ./test_bpf_output.c
>>> /************************ BEGIN **************************/
>>> #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>
>>> struct bpf_map_def {
>>> unsigned int type;
>>> unsigned int key_size;
>>> unsigned int value_size;
>>> unsigned int max_entries;
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define SEC(NAME) __attribute__((section(NAME), used))
>>> static u64 (*ktime_get_ns)(void) =
>>> (void *)BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns;
>>> static int (*trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =
>>> (void *)BPF_FUNC_trace_printk;
>>> static int (*get_smp_processor_id)(void) =
>>> (void *)BPF_FUNC_get_smp_processor_id;
>>> static int (*perf_event_output)(void *, struct bpf_map_def *, int,
>>> void *, unsigned long) =
>>> (void *)BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output;
>>>
>>> struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") channel = {
>>> .type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY,
>>> .key_size = sizeof(int),
>>> .value_size = sizeof(u32),
>>> .max_entries = __NR_CPUS__,
>>> };
>>>
>>> SEC("func_write=sys_write")
>>> int func_write(void *ctx)
>>> {
>>> struct {
>>> u64 ktime;
>>> int cpuid;
>>> } __attribute__((packed)) output_data;
>>> char error_data[] = "Error: failed to output: %d\n";
>>>
>>> output_data.cpuid = get_smp_processor_id();
>>> output_data.ktime = ktime_get_ns();
>>> int err = perf_event_output(ctx, &channel,
>>> get_smp_processor_id(),
>>> &output_data, sizeof(output_data));
>>> if (err)
>>> trace_printk(error_data, sizeof(error_data), err);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>>> int _version SEC("version") = LINUX_VERSION_CODE;
>>> /************************ END ***************************/
>>>
>>> # ./perf record -a -e bpf-output/no-inherit,name=evt/ \
>>> -e ./test_bpf_output.c/map:channel.event=evt/ ls /
>>> # ./perf script | grep ls
>>> ls 2242 [003] 347851.557563: evt: ffffffff811fd201
>>> sys_write ...
>>> ls 2242 [003] 347851.557571: evt: ffffffff811fd201
>>> sys_write ...
>> So, there is something strange here:
>>
>> if (unlikely(event->oncpu != smp_processor_id()))
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>
All failures have 'event->oncpu == -1' here. I guess we should suppress
warning in
this case. But why event->oncpu becomes -1?
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists