[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E9CB8C05-8972-4454-9D19-FA2D0D94F32D@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:54:16 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/4] tracing/probe: Add
PERF_EVENT_IOC_QUERY_PROBE ioctl
Hi Peter,
> On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:43:49PM +0000, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> On 8/21/19 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> So extending PERF_RECORD_LOST doesn't work. But PERF_FORMAT_LOST might
>>> still work fine; but you get to implement it for all software events.
>>
>> Could you give more specifics about PERF_FORMAT_LOST? Googling
>> "PERF_FORMAT_LOST" only yields two emails which we are discussing here :-(
>
> Look at what the other PERF_FORMAT_ flags do? Basically it is adding a
> field to the read(2) output.
Do we need to implement PERF_FORMAT_LOST for all software events? If user
space asks for PERF_FORMAT_LOST for events that do not support it, can we
just fail sys_perf_event_open()?
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists