[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160923121403.GC5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:14:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer
allocation
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:27:21PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> In order to be able to allocate perf ring buffers in non-mmap path, we
> need to make sure we can still account the memory to the user and that
> they don't exceed their mlock limit.
>
> This patch moves ring buffer memory accounting down the rb_alloc() path
> so that its callers won't have to worry about it. This also serves the
> additional purpose of slightly cleaning up perf_mmap().
While I like a cleanup of that code (it really can use one), I'm not a
big fan of hidden buffers like this. Why is this needed?
A quick look through the patches also leaves me wondering on the design
and interface of this thing. A few words explaining the overall design
would be nice.
Afaict there's no actual need to hide the AUX buffer for this sampling
stuff; the user knows about all this and can simply mmap() the AUX part.
The sample could either point to locations in the AUX buffer, or (as I
think this code does) memcpy bits out.
Ideally we'd pass the AUX-event into the syscall, that way you avoid all
the find_aux_event crud. I'm not sure we want to overload the group_fd
thing more (its already very hard to create counter groups in a cgroup
for example) ..
Coredump was mentioned somewhere, but I'm not sure I've seen
code/interfaces for that. How was that envisioned to work?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists