[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190211081840.j3vhyp3cffftb6m2@ast-mbp>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:18:42 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf, bpf: Retain kernel executable code in memory
to aid Intel PT tracing
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:54:01AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>
> Which is not really a real use-case.
..
> > perf analysis with PT becomes inaccurate and main goal
> > of retaining accurate instruction info is not achieved.
>
> For the majority of real use-cases, yes it is.
In our fleet not a single server is using Intel PT, yet you're
proposing to penalize all of them with shrinker-based JIT freeing?
There is no negotiation here.
NACK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists