On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 03:47:37PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote: > Hi Namhyung,
Hi, > > 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 clear_perf_probe_event(). 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: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/n/1441523623-152703-6-git-send-email-wangn...@huawei.com > > http://lkml.kernel.org/n/1441523623-152703-7-git-send-email-wangn...@huawei.com Thanks for your work! Namhyung -- 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/
