[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <050ABAC6-6C3B-4B6B-BB68-727127E00B51@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 18:49:19 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC perf,bpf 1/5] perf, bpf: Introduce PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT
Hi David,
> On Nov 8, 2018, at 10:26 AM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/8/18 11:04 AM, Song Liu wrote:
>> On the other hand, processing BPF load/unload events synchronously should
>> not introduce too much overhead for meaningful use cases. If many BPF progs
>> are being loaded/unloaded within short period of time, it is not the steady
>> state that profiling works care about.
>
> but, profiling is not the only use case, and perf-record is common with
> those other use cases.
>
> I think that answers why your RFC set does not fork a thread for the bpf
> events. You are focused on profiling and for already loaded programs or
> for a small number of programs loaded by a specific workload started by
> perf.
We sure can fork a thread for the BPF event. But I guess that's not Peter's
main concern here...
Could you please point me to more information about the use cases you worry
about? I am more than happy to optimize the logic for those use cases.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists