[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/5] perf probe: Split add_perf_probe_events()
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 03:47:37PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> Hi Namhyung,


> Thanks for this patchset.
> Could you plase have a look at patch 5/27 and 6/27 in my newest pull
> request?
> These 2 patches utilize new probing API to create probe point and collect
> probe_trace_events. I'm not very sure I fully understand your design
> principle,
> especially the cleanup part, because I can see different functions dealing
> with
> cleanup:
> cleanup_perf_probe_events
> del_perf_probe_events
> clear_perf_probe_event
> clear_probe_trace_event
> But non of them works perfectly for me.

The cleanup_perf_probe_events() is just to keep the existing logic as
long as possible. But I think it needs to call

The del_perf_probe_events() uses strfilter, but I think it can be
problematic if other instances or users are using similar events at
the same time.

So for your case, IMHO it'd better keeping the perf/trace events after
probing and reusing the events for unprobing. I'll take a look at it.

> In bpf_prog_priv__clear() function of 6/27, I copied some code from
> cleanup_perf_probe_events(), because I think when destroying bpf programs,
> the probe_trace_events should also be cleanuped, but we don't need call
> exit_symbol_maps() many times, because we are in 'perf record', and not
> sure whether other parts of perf need symbol maps. Otherwise I think
> directly
> calling cleanup_perf_probe_events() sould be better.

Yeah, I also think exit_symbol_maps() should not be a part of the
cleanup. I'll send a patch soon.

> You can find patch from:

Thanks for your work!

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-10 05:01    [W:0.167 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site