On Thu Aug 22, 2019 at 11:05 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 07:54:16AM +, Song Liu wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > > On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:43:49PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > >> On 8/21/19 11:31 AM,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 07:54:16AM +, Song Liu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:43:49PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >> On 8/21/19 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >>> So extending PERF_RECORD_LOST
Hi Peter,
> On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:43:49PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> On 8/21/19 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> So extending PERF_RECORD_LOST doesn't work. But PERF_FORMAT_LOST might
>>> still work fine; but you get to
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:43:49PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 8/21/19 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So extending PERF_RECORD_LOST doesn't work. But PERF_FORMAT_LOST might
> > still work fine; but you get to implement it for all software events.
>
> Could you give more specifics about
On 8/21/19 1:07 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:54:47PM +, Yonghong Song escreveu:
>> Arnaldo has a question on bcc mailing list about the hit/miss
>> counting of bpf program missed to process events.
>
>>
Em Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:54:47PM +, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> Arnaldo has a question on bcc mailing list about the hit/miss
> counting of bpf program missed to process events.
> https://lists.iovisor.org/g/iovisor-dev/message/1783
PERF_FORMAT_LOST seems to be a good answer to that? See my
Em Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:43:49PM +, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> On 8/21/19 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:54:47PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >> A lot of bpf-based tracing programs uses maps to communicate and
> >> do not allocate ring buffer at all.
> >
> >
On 8/21/19 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:54:47PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> Currently, in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c, we have
>>
>> unsigned int trace_call_bpf(struct trace_event_call *call, void *ctx)
>> {
>> unsigned int ret;
>>
>> if
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:54:47PM +, Yonghong Song wrote:
> Currently, in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c, we have
>
> unsigned int trace_call_bpf(struct trace_event_call *call, void *ctx)
> {
> unsigned int ret;
>
> if (in_nmi()) /* not supported yet */
> return
On 8/21/19 4:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:58:47AM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On Tue Aug 20, 2019 at 4:45 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:58:47AM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Tue Aug 20, 2019 at 4:45 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit stats. For example with
> > > tracing tools, it's
Hi Peter,
On Tue Aug 20, 2019 at 4:45 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit stats. For example with
> > tracing tools, it's important to know when events may have been lost.
> > debugfs currently
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit stats. For example with
> tracing tools, it's important to know when events may have been lost.
> debugfs currently exposes a control file to get this information, but
> it is not
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:34 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> Ah yes, sorry. Will add that.
Also please fix build errors.
It looks like buildbot is not happy about few things.
On Mon Aug 19, 2019 at 6:26 PM Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:33 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
> >
> > It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit stats. For example with
> > tracing tools, it's important to know when events may have been lost.
> > debugfs currently exposes a
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Daniel-Xu/tracing-probe-Add-PERF_EVENT_IOC_QUERY_PROBE-ioctl/20190820-003910
base:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:33 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit stats. For example with
> tracing tools, it's important to know when events may have been lost.
> debugfs currently exposes a control file to get this information, but
> it is not compatible with
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Daniel-Xu/tracing-probe-Add-PERF_EVENT_IOC_QUERY_PROBE-ioctl/20190820-003910
base:
It's useful to know [uk]probe's nmissed and nhit stats. For example with
tracing tools, it's important to know when events may have been lost.
debugfs currently exposes a control file to get this information, but
it is not compatible with probes registered with the perf API.
While bpf programs
19 matches
Mail list logo
