[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571AA02B.90107@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:05:31 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] perf core: Allow setting up max frame stack depth
via sysctl
On 4/22/16 2:52 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:04:12PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:47:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
>> Nice. I like it. That's a great approach to hard problem.
>> Java guys will be happy too.
>> Please also adjust two places in kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
>
>>> + {
>>> + .procname = "perf_event_max_stack",
>>> + .data = NULL, /* filled in by handler */
>>> + .maxlen = sizeof(sysctl_perf_event_max_stack),
>>> + .mode = 0644,
>>> + .proc_handler = perf_event_max_stack_handler,
>>> + .extra1 = &zero,
>
>> zero seems to be the wrong minimum. I think it should be at least 2 to
>> to fit user/kernel tags ? Probably needs to define max as well.
>
> So, if someone asks for zero, it will not copy anything, but then, this
> would be what the user had asked for :-)
>
> Ditto for the max, if someone asks for too big a callchain, then when
> allocating it it will fail and no callchain will be produced, that or it
> will be able to allocate but will take too long copying that many
> addresses, and we would be prevented from doing so by some other
> protection, iirc there is perf_cpu_time_max_percent, and then buffer
> space will run out.
>
> So I think that leaving it as is is enough, no?
>
> Can I keep your Acked-by? David, can I keep yours?
Yes
> diff --git a/kernel/events/callchain.c b/kernel/events/callchain.c
> index 343c22f5e867..6fe77349fa9d 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/callchain.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/callchain.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,14 @@ struct callchain_cpus_entries {
> struct perf_callchain_entry *cpu_entries[0];
> };
>
> +int sysctl_perf_event_max_stack __read_mostly = PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH;
> +
> +static size_t perf_callchain_entry__sizeof(void)
> +{
> + return sizeof(struct perf_callchain_entry) +
> + sizeof(__u64) * sysctl_perf_event_max_stack;
> +}
> +
To Alexei's comment, a max_stack of 0 still has a non-zero alloc size so
that should be ok.
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, callchain_recursion[PERF_NR_CONTEXTS]);
> static atomic_t nr_callchain_events;
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(callchain_mutex);
> @@ -73,7 +81,7 @@ static int alloc_callchain_buffers(void)
> if (!entries)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - size = sizeof(struct perf_callchain_entry) * PERF_NR_CONTEXTS;
> + size = perf_callchain_entry__sizeof() * PERF_NR_CONTEXTS;
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> entries->cpu_entries[cpu] = kmalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists