On 2015/5/6 12:56, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 5/5/15 9:46 PM, Wang Nan wrote:
>> Hi Alexei Starovoitov,
>>
>> Have you ever read this mail?
>
> please don't top post.
>
>>>> all makes sense and your use case fits quite well into existing
>>>> bpf+kprobe model. I'm not sure why you're calling a 'problem'.
>>>> A problem of how to display that call stack from perf?
>>>> I would say it fits better as a sample than a trace.
>>>> If you dump it as a trace, it won't easy to decipher, whereas if you
>>>> treat it a sampling event, perf record/report facility will pick it up and
>>>> display nicely. Meaning that one sample == lock_page/unlock_page
>>>> latency > N. Then existing sample_callchain flag should work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite well. Do we have an eBPF function like
>>>
>>> static int (*bpf_perf_sample)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =
>>> BPF_FUNC_perf_sample
>>>
>>> so we can use it in the program probed in the body of __unlock_page() like
>>> that:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> if (latency > 0.5s)
>>> bpf_perf_sample("page=%p, latency=%d", sizeof(...), page, latency);
>
> No need for extra helper. There is already return value from
> the program for this purpose.
> From kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:
> * Return: BPF programs always return an integer which is interpreted by
> * kprobe handler as:
> * 0 - return from kprobe (event is filtered out)
> * 1 - store kprobe event into ring buffer
>
> in your case the program attached to unlock_page() can return 1
> when it needs to store this event into ring buffer, so that perf can
> process it. If I'm not mistaken, the sample_callchain flag cannot be
> applied to kprobe events, but that's a general program (not
> related to bpf) and can be addressed as such.
>
That's great! Thanks to your response!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
