[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021121713.GC3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:17:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Cc: xiakaixu <xiakaixu@...wei.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pi3orama@....com, hekuang@...wei.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] bpf: control events stored in PERF_EVENT_ARRAY
maps trace data output when perf sampling
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> If our task is sampling cycle events during a function is running,
> and if two cores start that function overlap:
>
> Time: ...................A
> Core 0: sys_write----\
> \
> \
> Core 1: sys_write%return
> Core 2: ................sys_write
>
> Then without counter at time A it is highly possible that
> BPF program on core 1 and core 2 get conflict with each other.
> The final result is we make some of those events be turned on
> and others turned off. Using atomic counter can avoid this
> problem.
But but, how and why can an eBPF program access a !local event? I
thought we had hard restrictions on that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists