On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:24:55AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:10:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > +static void trace_block_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, bool enter)
> > > +{
> > > + current->perf_blocked = true;
> > > +
> > > + do {
> > > + schedule_timeout(100 * HZ);
> > > + current->perf_blocked_cnt = 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (enter) {
> > > + /* perf syscalls:* enter */
> > > + perf_trace_syscall_enter(regs);
> > > +
> > > + /* perf raw_syscalls:* enter */
> > > + perf_trace_sys_enter(&event_sys_enter, regs,
> > > regs->orig_ax);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /* perf syscalls:* enter */
> > > + perf_trace_syscall_exit(regs);
> > > +
> > > + /* perf raw_syscalls:* enter */
> > > + perf_trace_sys_exit(&event_sys_exit, regs, regs->ax);
> > > + }
> > > + } while (current->perf_blocked_cnt);
> > > +
> > > + current->perf_blocked = false;
> > > +}
> >
> > I don't understand this.. why are we using schedule_timeout() and all
> > that?
>
> the idea is to block the process and try to deliver the event later
>
> the ring buffer space is freed by user space process moving the tail
> pointer, so I can't see doing this other way than polling
Right, figured that out.
I really really hate this stuff. poll-waiting fundamentally stinks, but
also perf is designed to not/minimally interfere with the observed
tasks, as is ftrace.
And bolting, as it really doesn't fit in the fundamental design, this
fugly thing on top for this special case.. urgh.
