[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgDOUbSS1NLO8C13+hi0KBZwQxh7jvz9p=i0gNf0N0zrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:26:14 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/bpf: Allow a bpf program to suppress I/O signals.
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:17 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 19:07, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > If we want to handle returning 0 from bpf as if the event didn't
> > happen, I think SIGTRAP and event_limit logic should be done
> > after the overflow handler depending on pending_kill or something.
>
> I'm not sure which kernel version this is for, but in recent kernels,
> the SIGTRAP logic was changed to no longer "abuse" event_limit, and
> uses its own "pending_sigtrap" + "pending_work" (on reschedule
> transitions).
Oh, I didn't mean SIGTRAP and event_limit together.
Maybe they have an issue separately.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists