[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d64ec287-c85e-4b50-beac-4517462882f6@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:37:19 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Junxuan Liao <ljx@...wisc.edu>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tracing: introduce enter/exit tracepoint pairs for
page faults
On 4/14/25 16:22, Junxuan Liao wrote:
> On 4/14/25 6:14 PM, Junxuan Liao wrote:
>> Do people find separate user/kernel tracepoints useful? For me, I can
>> check regs in eBPF tracing code instead.
> I think it might be good to add a field to the tracepoints to indicate
> whether it's in user space or not.
Sounds sane to me. Doing something like this:
TP_STRUCT__entry(
__field( unsigned long, address )
__field( unsigned long, ip )
+ __field( bool , user_mode)
__field( unsigned long, error_code )
),
TP_fast_assign(
__entry->address = address;
__entry->ip = regs->ip;
+ __entry->user_mode = user_mode(regs);
__entry->error_code = error_code;
),
seems highly superior to having two sets of tracepoints and static keys.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists