On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:28:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:03 AM Jiri Olsa <jo...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > Add new version of mmap event. The MMAP3 record is an
> > > augmented version of MMAP2, it adds build id value to
> > > identify the exact binary object behind memory map:
>
> > > struct {
> > > struct perf_event_header header;
>
> > > u32 pid, tid;
> > > u64 addr;
> > > u64 len;
> > > u64 pgoff;
> > > u32 maj;
> > > u32 min;
> > > u64 ino;
> > > u64 ino_generation;
> > > u32 prot, flags;
> > > u32 reserved;
>
> What for this reserved? its all nicely aligned already, u64 followed by
> two u32 (prot, flags).
>
> > > u8 buildid[20];
>
> > Do we need maj, min, ino, ino_generation for mmap3 event?
> > I think they are to compare binaries, then we can do it with
> > build-id (and I think it'd be better)..
>
> Humm, I thought MMAP2 would be a superset of MMAP and MMAP3 would be a
> superset of MMAP2.
>
> If we want to ditch useless stuff, then trow away pid, tid too, as we
> can select those via sample_type.
>
> Having said that, at this point I don't even know if adding new
> PERF_RECORD_ that are an update for a preexisting one is the right way
> to proceed.
>
> Perhaps we should attach a BPF program to point where a mmap/munmap is
> being done (perf_event_mmap()) and allow userspace to ask for whatever
> it wants? With a kprobes there right now we can implement this MMAP3
> easily, no?
hmm, I'm always woried about solutions based on kprobes,
because once the function is moved/removed you're screwed
and need to keep up with function name changes and be
backward compatible..
jirka
