[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180921135502.GC24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:55:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, daniel@...earbox.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: emit RECORD_MMAP events for bpf prog
load/unload
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:25:00AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > I consider synthetic perf events to be non-ABI. Meaning they're
> > emitted by perf user space into perf.data and there is a convention
> > on names, but it's not a kernel abi. Like RECORD_MMAP with
> > event.filename == "[module_name]" is an indication for perf report
> > to parse elf/build-id of dso==module_name.
> > There is no such support in the kernel. Kernel doesn't emit
> > such events for module load/unload. If in the future
> > we decide to extend kernel with such events they don't have
> > to match what user space perf does today.
>
> Right, that is another unfortunate state of affairs, kernel module
> load/unload should already be supported, reported by the kernel via a
> proper PERF_RECORD_MODULE_LOAD/UNLOAD
Just wondering, is anyone actually doing enough module loading for this
to matter? (asks the CONFIG_MODULES=n guy).
I thought that was all a relatively static affair; you boot, you get
loadead a few modules for present hardware, the end.
Anyway, no real objection, just wonder if it's worth it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists