[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b984776a-ce69-ab16-ed87-1cea89c9d79a@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:54:09 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@...com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
peterz@...radead.org, acme@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC perf,bpf 5/5] perf util: generate bpf_prog_info_event for
short living bpf programs
On 11/6/18 1:52 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> +
> static int record__mmap_read_all(struct record *rec)
> {
> int err;
>
> + err = record__mmap_process_vip_events(rec);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> err = record__mmap_read_evlist(rec, rec->evlist, false);
> if (err)
> return err;
Seems to me that is going to increase the overhead of perf on any system
doing BPF updates. The BPF events cause a wakeup every load and unload,
and perf processes not only the VIP events but then walks all of the
other maps.
> @@ -1686,6 +1734,8 @@ static struct option __record_options[] = {
> "signal"),
> OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "dry-run", &dry_run,
> "Parse options then exit"),
> + OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "no-bpf-event", &record.no_bpf_event,
> + "do not record event on bpf program load/unload"),
Why should this default on? If am recording FIB events, I don't care
about BPF events.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists