[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQYbQV86dWCHMZX0sMspkHXSpYOB6G+c2kSOf3d4R7dNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:44:09 -0700
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Add munmap callback
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:34 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:23 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > That is actually a different problem. And you're right, we never did fix
> > > that.
> > >
> > it is a different problem but the solution is the same: PERF_RECORD_UNMAP!
>
> But he's not actually doing PERF_RECORD_UNMAP, nor is his perf_munmap()
> hook sufficient to actually generate those.
>
You're right. But I saw that and thought, this is going in the right
direction: tracking munmap.
I agree with you that we should use this opportunity to track unmap
for his purpose but also
the issue I raised, which needs a new record type based on the new unmap hook.
> Now I agree that if he's going to do an munmap hook, he should do it
> 'right' and at the very least allow for PERF_RECORD_UNMAP to be done,
> but ideally simply pick up and finish that patch we had back then.
Agreed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists