* David Ahern <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/8/13 1:54 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >>>If the current MMAP2 is not a complete solution for what you (Google)
> >>>need, should support be reverted before 3.12 is released? No sense in
> >>>making this part of the forever API if more work is needed on it.
> >>
> >>Instead of a full revert we could just turn off the ABI portion minimally
> >>and not recognize it for now. Assuming a more complete solution is in the
> >>works for v3.13.
> >>
> >That's a possibility. They are also pieces in the perf tool itself.
> >We could certainly make the attr->mmap2 bit disappear.
> >
> >I think it boils down to how can we uniquely identify virtual
> >mapping to the same physical data either via shmat(), files, VM_CLONE.
> >We had all covered but the last case with the ino approach. We don't have
> >a solution for VM_CLONE yet.
> >
>
> I was mainly thinking the 2 parts that generate MMAP2 events: kernel
> side it's the mmap2 attribute and perf_event_mmap_output; userspace side
> it's perf_event__synthesize_mmap_event. Certainly the rest of the
> plumbing can be left in place until the solution is refined as needed.
Could some of you please send a patch ASAP?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
