[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aR5mTLRWA-SLAFUM@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:52:28 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...nel.org, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, japo@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Linux-next] perf test: Fix test case perf trace BTF
general tests
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:59:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 20:36:46 -0800
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > Really? It still uses libtraceevent right? I made sure that this didn't
> > > break trace-cmd and thought that perf would work too.
> >
> > It doesn't completely break perf trace but added new parameter for the
> > write syscall at the end. IIUC perf trace iterates the format fields
> > after __syscall_nr and take them all as syscall parameters.
>
> Is this a regression? Or can perf be fixed?
>
> I just ran it and I have this:
>
> 542.337 ( 0.131 ms): sshd-session/1189 write(fd: 7<socket:[9749]>, buf: , count: 268) = 268
>
> I haven't tried it without the patches. Does it usually show what "buf" is?
> Now with the reading of user space, it can show the content too!
Yep, it reads the content using BPF. This is on my 6.16 kernel.
$ sudo perf trace -e write -- /bin/echo hello
hello
0.000 ( 0.014 ms): echo/61922 write(fd: 1, buf: hello\10, count: 6) = 6
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists