Re: [PATCH 0/6] enable creating [k,u]probe with perf_event_open

2017-11-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:02:00AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Just curious: why do you want to overload a multiplexer syscall even > more instead of adding explicit syscalls? Mostly because perf provides much of what they already want; fd-based lifetime and bpf integration.

Re: [PATCH 0/6] enable creating [k,u]probe with perf_event_open

2017-11-23 Thread Christoph Hellwig
Just curious: why do you want to overload a multiplexer syscall even more instead of adding explicit syscalls?

Re: [PATCH 0/6] enable creating [k,u]probe with perf_event_open

2017-11-21 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:23:31AM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > Changes RFC v2 to PATCH v1: > Check type PERF_TYPE_PROBE in perf_event_set_filter(). > Rebase on to tip perf/core. > > Changes RFC v1 to RFC v2: > Fix build issue reported by kbuild test bot by adding ifdef of > CONFIG_KPROBE_EVEN

[PATCH 0/6] enable creating [k,u]probe with perf_event_open

2017-11-15 Thread Song Liu
Changes RFC v2 to PATCH v1: Check type PERF_TYPE_PROBE in perf_event_set_filter(). Rebase on to tip perf/core. Changes RFC v1 to RFC v2: Fix build issue reported by kbuild test bot by adding ifdef of CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS, and CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENTS. RFC v1 cover letter: This is to follow u