On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:01:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:26:39PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 03:39:38 +0300
> > "Dmitry V. Levin" wrote:
> >
> > > btw, I didn't ask for the implementation to be ugly.
> > > You don't have to introduce po
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:01:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> - the wakeups side is icky; the best I can come up with is making the
>data page R/O and single stepping on write fault, but that isn't
>multi-threading safe.
We can emulate the instruction, that would actually work and be
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:01:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> One, very big maybe, would be to add a new tracepoint type that includes
> a might_sleep() and we very carefully undo all the preempt_disable and
> go sleep where we should. That also gives the tracepoint crud the
> information it ne
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:26:39PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 03:39:38 +0300
> "Dmitry V. Levin" wrote:
>
> > btw, I didn't ask for the implementation to be ugly.
> > You don't have to introduce polling into the kernel if you don't want to,
> > userspace is perfectly capab
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:26:39PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 03:39:38 +0300, wrote:
>
> > btw, I didn't ask for the implementation to be ugly.
> > You don't have to introduce polling into the kernel if you don't want to,
> > userspace is perfectly capable of invoking wait4
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 03:39:38 +0300
"Dmitry V. Levin" wrote:
> btw, I didn't ask for the implementation to be ugly.
> You don't have to introduce polling into the kernel if you don't want to,
> userspace is perfectly capable of invoking wait4(2) in a loop.
> Just block the tracee, notify the trace
Hi Peter,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:18:18AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:44:23 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > > Why do we care about lost events? Because strace records *all* events,
> > > > as that
On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:44:23 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Why do we care about lost events? Because strace records *all* events,
> > > as that's what it does and that's what it always has done. It would be
> > > a break in fu
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:44:23 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It's a tool I haven't used in years, given we have so many better tools
> around these days.
So because you don't use it, it's useless? As you don't care about lost
events I can see why you may think there are better tools out there.
But
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:41:21 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [root@seventh bpf]# trace -e augmented_raw_syscalls.c --filter-pids
> > 2279,1643
> >
> > 19766.027 ( 0.003 ms): gcc/27524 openat(dfd: CWD, filename:
> > /lib64/libz.so.1, flags: CLOEXEC ) = 5
> > 19766.035 ( 0.001 ms): g
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 03:14:33PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:11:05 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100
> > > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > These patches giv
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 12:49:21PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 04:11:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100 Peter Zijlstra
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > These p
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:11:05 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > These patches give no justification *what*so*ever* for why we're doing
> > > ugly arse things lik
Em Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 04:11:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100 Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> > > These patches give no justification *what*so*ever* for why we're doing
> > > ugly arse things
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > These patches give no justification *what*so*ever* for why we're doing
> > ugly arse things like this. And why does this, whatever this is, need to
> > be done in perf
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> These patches give no justification *what*so*ever* for why we're doing
> ugly arse things like this. And why does this, whatever this is, need to
> be done in perf?
>
> IOW, what problem are we solving ?
I guess the cover letter should h
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:19:46PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:34:00 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I don't understand this.. why are we using schedule_timeout() and all
> > > that?
> >
> > Urgh.. in fact, the more I look at this the more I hate it.
> >
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:19:46PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:34:00 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I don't understand this.. why are we using schedule_timeout() and all
> > > that?
> >
> > Urgh.. in fact, the more I look at this the more I hate it.
> >
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:34:00 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand this.. why are we using schedule_timeout() and all
> > that?
>
> Urgh.. in fact, the more I look at this the more I hate it.
>
> We want to block in __perf_output_begin(), but we cannot because both
> tracepoi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:34:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:10:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > +static void trace_block_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, bool enter)
> > > +{
> > > + current->perf_bl
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:24:55AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:10:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > +static void trace_block_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, bool enter)
> > > +{
> > > + current->perf_blocked
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:09:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Adding support to specify 'block' bool in struct perf_event_attr
>
> NAK for having _Bool in structures.
oops, will change.. if there's ever another version ;-)
jirka
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:17:07AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > @@ -10461,6 +10484,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > + if (attr.block) {
> > + /*
> > +
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:10:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > +static void trace_block_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, bool enter)
> > +{
> > + current->perf_blocked = true;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + schedule_timeout(100 *
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:10:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > +static void trace_block_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, bool enter)
> > +{
> > + current->perf_blocked = true;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + schedule_timeout(100 *
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> @@ -10461,6 +10484,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if (attr.block) {
> + /*
> + * Allow only syscall tracepoints, check for syscall class
> +
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> +static void trace_block_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, bool enter)
> +{
> + current->perf_blocked = true;
> +
> + do {
> + schedule_timeout(100 * HZ);
> + current->perf_blocked_cnt = 0;
> +
> +
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Adding support to specify 'block' bool in struct perf_event_attr
NAK for having _Bool in structures.
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:35:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:05:02 +0100
> Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > index 3b2490b81918..e55cf9169a03 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/commo
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:05:02 +0100
Jiri Olsa wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> index 3b2490b81918..e55cf9169a03 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,32 @@ static void do_audit_syscall_entry(struct pt_regs *re
30 matches
Mail list logo
