Hi Namhyung, On 06/30, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:01:36 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > This would be easy to fix, but there are other reasons why it is not > > simple to mix ftrace and perf. If nothing else, they can't share the > > same ->consumer.filter. This is fixable too, but probably we need to > > fix the poorly designed uprobe_register() interface first. At least > > "register" and "apply" should be clearly separated. > > Hmm.. right. It seems the current filter logic only cares about the > perf. If ftrace comes after perf, it might not see some events due to > the filter, right?
Yes. Or vice versa, ftrace can miss the events because perf can return UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE. Or ftrace can come after perf, but in this case it should call uprobe_apply() or it won't add the new breakpoints. Actually, I'll probably try to make the patch tomorrow. It looks simple enough, the main complication is CONFIG_PERF. And, to keep this patch simple, I won't try to optimize (say) the TP_FLAG_TRACE-comes-first case which could avoid uprobe_apply(). Yes, I still think it would be better to change the register/unregister API first, but I do not know when I do this ;) > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v3.14 > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> > > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> Thanks! Oleg. -- 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/
