On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 04:32:02PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 07:53:06PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:34:16AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:20 AM Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 02:37:27PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > I think all could be added and worked around with exception > > > > > of BUILD_ID, which we store at the end (after processing > > > > > all data) and we need it early in the report phase > > > > > > Buildids are injected after the fact via perf inject when in pipe mode. > > > > > > > maybe it's time to re-think that buildid -> mmap event > > > > > association again, because it's pain in current implementation > > > > > as well > > > > > > Sure, but what do you propose? > > > > > this: > > > > > > > > looks like bpf code is actualy getting build ids and storing > > > > > it for the callchains in kernel.. we can check if we can do > > > > > something similar for mmap events > > > > kernel/bpf/stackmap.c > > > > /* Parse build ID from 64-bit ELF */ > > static int stack_map_get_build_id_64(void *page_addr, > > unsigned char *build_id) > > > > yeah, wasn't aware of that, good thing doing backports, huh? :-) > > > > So do you thing about having a PERF_SAMPLE_BUILDID in sample_type and go > > and stash that thing in PERF_RECORD_MMAP2? > That would be special processing. Normally the sample_type go into each RECORD_SAMPLE. So I would not recommend this approach.
> I thought having new MMAP3 event version with buildid field in it > if available and/or enabled by bit in perf_event_attr > I think MMAP3 is a cleaner approach, though it adds yet another MMAP event. > jirka
