On 7/2/15 2:24 AM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
Yes, by using perf_trace_buf_prepare() + perf_trace_buf_submit() in
helper function and let bpf program always returns 0 we can make data
collected by BPF programs output into samples, if following problems
are solved:
1. In bpf program there's no way to get 'struct perf_event' or 'struct
ftrace_event_call'. We have to deduce them through pt_regs:
pt_regs -> ip -> kprobe -> struct trace_kprobe -> struct
ftrace_event_call -> hlist_entry -> struct perf_event
yeah, going through hash table via get_kprobe() is not pretty.
How about using this_cpu_write(current_perf_event, ...) and using it
from the helper? bpf progs are non-preemptable and non-reentrable.
Also I think this helper would be more flexible if we can
allow passing sample_type into it.
Ideally from the program one could do something like:
bpf_event_output(buf, sizeof(buf), PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN);
which will prepare a sample with raw buf and callstack.
This way program can decide when and how send events to user space.
2. Even if we finally get 'struct perf_event', I'm not sure whether
user really concern on it. If we really concern on all information
output through perf_trace_buf_submit() like callstack and
register, why not make bpf program return non-zero instead? But then
we have to consider how to connect two samples together.
see my suggestion above. when sample_type was hard coded during event
creation it's a useful case on its own, but if we can make program to
provide this type dynamically, it will open whole new set of possibilities.
--
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/
