[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200907110223.gtdgqod2iv2w7xmg@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:02:24 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
vincent.donnefort@....com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/debug: Add new tracepoint to track cpu_capacity
On 09/02/20 09:54, Phil Auld wrote:
> >
> > I think this decoupling is not necessary. The natural place for those
> > scheduler trace_event based on trace_points extension files is
> > kernel/sched/ and here the internal sched.h can just be included.
> >
> > If someone really wants to build this as an out-of-tree module there is
> > an easy way to make kernel/sched/sched.h visible.
> >
>
> It's not so much that we really _want_ to do this in an external module.
> But we aren't adding more trace events and my (limited) knowledge of
> BPF let me to the conclusion that its raw tracepoint functionality
> requires full events. I didn't see any other way to do it.
I did have a patch that allowed that. It might be worth trying to upstream it.
It just required a new macro which could be problematic.
https://github.com/qais-yousef/linux/commit/fb9fea29edb8af327e6b2bf3bc41469a8e66df8b
With the above I could attach using bpf::RAW_TRACEPOINT mechanism.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists