On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:13:23PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> So, you suggest to search the symbols by a hash. Do I get it correctly?
>
> Well, it might bring back the original problem. I mean
> the commit 8b8e6b5d3b013b0 ("kallsyms: strip ThinLTO hashes from
> static functions") added
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:56 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:18:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:54:51AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > > > @@ -593,6 +595,12 @@ static struct uprobe *get_uprobe(struct uprobe
> > > > *uprobe)
> > > >
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:19 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:54:51AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > > @@ -593,6 +595,12 @@ static struct uprobe *get_uprobe(struct uprobe
> > > *uprobe)
> > > return uprobe;
> > > }
> > >
[...]
> > > @@ -668,12 +677,25 @@
When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the
function. This is often going to be `push %rbp` instruction in function
preamble, which means that within that function frame pointer hasn't
been
The current DRAM size is insufficient for the HEVC feature, which
requires more memory for proper functionality. This change ensures the
feature has the necessary resources.
Signed-off-by: Jason Chen
---
drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 9 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 13:29:13 +, Raymond Hackley wrote:
> Samsung Galaxy Grand 2 is a phone based on MSM8226. It's similar to the
> other Samsung devices based on MSM8226 with only a few minor differences.
>
> The device trees contain initial support with:
> - GPIO keys
> - Regulator
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:18:29 +0530, Sudeepgoud Patil wrote:
> This commit enhances the smp2p driver by adding support for using the device
> name in interrupt descriptions and introducing tracepoint functionality.
> These improvements facilitate more effective debugging of smp2p-related
>
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:15:54 +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Without explicitly specifying names for the regulators they are named
> based on the DeviceTree node name. This results in multiple regulators
> with the same name, making debug prints and regulator_summary impossible
> to reason about.
>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:30:23 +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Since the smsm driver got the ability to interact with the mailbox using
> the mailbox subsystem and not just syscon, we need to add the dependency
> to kconfig as well to avoid compile errors.
>
>
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] soc: qcom:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:12:36 +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> While refactoring pd-mapper to use auxiliary bus for the PD mapper
> instantiation I forgot to select the bus in Kconfig entries. Fix it now.
>
>
Applied, thanks!
[1/2] soc: qcom: add missing pd-mapper dependencies
commit:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 6:11 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:06:14PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > Should it also check for ENDBR64?
> > > >
> >
> > Sure, I can add a check for endbr64 as well. endbr64 probably can be
> > used not just at function entry, is that
Switch the order of prev_comm and next_comm in sched_switch's code to
align with its printing order.
Signed-off-by: Tio Zhang
Reviewed-by: Madadi Vineeth Reddy
---
include/trace/events/sched.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/trace/events/sched.h
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:06:14PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > Should it also check for ENDBR64?
> > >
>
> Sure, I can add a check for endbr64 as well. endbr64 probably can be
> used not just at function entry, is that right? So it might be another
> case of false positive (which I think
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:41:07 +0200
> Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> > new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
> >
> > The session
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 04:35:56PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:18:58AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
> > > install the probe (e.g.,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:18:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:54:51AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > > @@ -593,6 +595,12 @@ static struct uprobe *get_uprobe(struct uprobe
> > > *uprobe)
> > > return uprobe;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:41:07 +0200
Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
>
> The session means that 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks are
> connected in a way
+CC Steve and linux-trace-kernel list.
Thanks,
Namhyung
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
> Other tools, in tools/verification and tools/tracing, make use of
> libtraceevent and libtracefs as dependencies. This allows setting
> up the feature check flags for them
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 04:35:56PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:18:58AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
> > install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the
> > function.
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:18:58AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
> install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the
> function. This is often going to be `push %rbp` instruction in function
> preamble,
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 12:53:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 00:19:05 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>
> > > BTW, is this (batched register/unregister APIs) something you'd like
> > > to use from the tracefs-based (or whatever it's called, I mean non-BPF
> > > ones)
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:44 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding test that attached/detaches multiple consumers on
> single uprobe and verifies all were hit as expected.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa
> ---
> .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c| 203 ++
>
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:43 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding uprobe session test that verifies the cookie value is stored
> properly when single uprobe-ed function is executed recursively.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa
> ---
> .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c| 57 +++
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:43 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding uprobe session test that verifies the cookie value
> get properly propagated from entry to return program.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa
> ---
> .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c| 31
>
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:43 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding uprobe session test and testing that the entry program
> return value controls execution of the return probe program.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa
> ---
> .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c| 42 +++
>
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:43 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding uprobe session attach type name to attach_type_name,
> so libbpf_bpf_attach_type_str returns proper string name for
> BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION attach type.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 1 +
> 1 file
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:42 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding support to attach program in uprobe session mode
> with bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi function.
>
> Adding session bool to bpf_uprobe_multi_opts struct that allows
> to load and attach the bpf program via uprobe session.
> the
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:42 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Placing bpf_session_run_ctx layer in between bpf_run_ctx and
> bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx, so the session data can be retrieved
> from uprobe_multi link.
>
> Plus granting session kfuncs access to uprobe session programs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:42 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding support to attach bpf program for entry and return probe
> of the same function. This is common use case which at the moment
> requires to create two uprobe multi links.
>
> Adding new BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION attach type that instructs
>
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:53 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 00:19:05 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>
> > > BTW, is this (batched register/unregister APIs) something you'd like
> > > to use from the tracefs-based (or whatever it's called, I mean non-BPF
> > > ones)
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > > +static void
> > > +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer
> > > *uc)
> > >
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:41 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
>
> The session means that 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks are
> connected in a way that allows to:
io_ring.c
> @@ -3244,4 +3244,5 @@ void virtqueue_dma_sync_single_range_for_device(struct
> virtqueue *_vq,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtqueue_dma_sync_single_range_for_device);
>
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Virtio ring implementation");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> ---
> base-commit: 1dfe225e9af5bd3399a1dbc6a4df6a6041ff9c23
> change-id: 20240702-md-sh-drivers-virtio-704eb84769cb
t;);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
---
base-commit: 1dfe225e9af5bd3399a1dbc6a4df6a6041ff9c23
change-id: 20240702-md-sh-drivers-virtio-704eb84769cb
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:54:51AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > @@ -593,6 +595,12 @@ static struct uprobe *get_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> > return uprobe;
> > }
> >
> > +static void uprobe_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe =
Hello,
syzbot found the following issue on:
HEAD commit:a12978712d90 selftests/bpf: Move ARRAY_SIZE to bpf_misc.h
git tree: bpf-next
console+strace: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=130457fa98
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=736daf12bd72e034
On 2 July 2024 19:12:00 BST, Peter Hilber wrote:
>On 02.07.24 18:39, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> To clarify then, the main types are
>>
>> VIRTIO_RTC_CLOCK_UTC == 0
>> VIRTIO_RTC_CLOCK_TAI == 1
>> VIRTIO_RTC_CLOCK_MONOTONIC == 2
>> VIRTIO_RTC_CLOCK_SMEARED_UTC == 3
>>
>> And the subtypes are
On 02.07.24 18:39, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 17:03 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
>>> On 01.07.24 10:57, David Woodhouse wrote:
> If my proposed memory structure is subsumed into the virtio-rtc
> proposal we'd literally use the same names, but for the time being I'll
>
Support backports for stable version. There are two places where null
deref could happen before
commit 2c92ca849fcc ("tracing/treewide: Remove second parameter of
__assign_str()")
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/20240516133454.681ba...@rorschach.local.home/
I've checked
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 3:23 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:39:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > index 23449a8c5e7e..560cf1ca512a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:54 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> +LKML
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:23:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:39:23PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > This patch set, ultimately, switches global uprobes_treelock from RW
> > > spinlock
> >
On 2024-07-02 12:51, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:32:53 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
If we use '*' for user events already, perhaps we'd want to consider
using the same range for the ring buffer ioctls ? Arguably one is
about instrumentation and the other is about ring buffer
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 11:18:07AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 10:36:03 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > > I can send a patch this week to update it. Or feel free to send a patch
> > > yourself.
> >
> > You need to reserve an unused ioctl Code and Seq# range
When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the
function. This is often going to be `push %rbp` instruction in function
preamble, which means that within that function frame pointer hasn't
been
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 2:50 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> +Josj +LKML
>
ack, will add for next revision
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:10:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
> > install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:50:49AM GMT, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Ágatha,
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 02:44:31AM -0300, Ágatha Isabelle Chris Moreira
> Guedes wrote:
> > ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> > Thanks for Jookia, heat and ukleinek for the important comments &
> > suggestions on this patch
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 00:19:05 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > BTW, is this (batched register/unregister APIs) something you'd like
> > to use from the tracefs-based (or whatever it's called, I mean non-BPF
> > ones) uprobes as well? Or there is just no way to even specify a batch
> > of
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:32:53 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> If we use '*' for user events already, perhaps we'd want to consider
> using the same range for the ring buffer ioctls ? Arguably one is
> about instrumentation and the other is about ring buffer interaction
> (data transport), but
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 11:32:53AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
> Note that user events also has this issue: the ioctl is not reserved in
> the ioctl-number.rst list. See include/uapi/linux/user_events.h:
>
> #define DIAG_IOC_MAGIC '*'
>
> /* Request to register a user_event */
>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 04:37:59PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> The new TEE remoteproc device is used to manage remote firmware in a
Device or driver?
> secure, trusted context. The 'st,stm32mp1-m4-tee' compatibility is
> introduced to delegate the loading of the firmware to the trusted
>
Good morning,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 04:37:56PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Add a remoteproc TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) driver
> that will be probed by the TEE bus. If the associated Trusted
> application is supported on secure part this driver offers a client
> interface to load a
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 17:03 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> > On 01.07.24 10:57, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > If my proposed memory structure is subsumed into the virtio-rtc
> > > > proposal we'd literally use the same names, but for the time being I'll
> > > > update mine to:
> >
> > Do you
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 19:27:16 +0900
Takaya Saeki wrote:
> Hello all, and thank you so much for the review, Steven and Masami.
>
> I'm currently considering replacing the `max_ofs` output with
> `length`. Please let me know your thoughts.
> With the current design, a memory range of an event is an
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > +static void
> > +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > +{
> > + static unsigned int session_id;
> > +
> > + if
On 2024-07-02 11:18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 10:36:03 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
I can send a patch this week to update it. Or feel free to send a patch
yourself.
You need to reserve an unused ioctl Code and Seq# range within:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:34:55 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > How about this? I'll keep the existing get_uprobe_consumer(idx, ctx)
> > > contract, which works for the only user right now, BPF multi-uprobes.
> > > When it's time to add another consumer that works with a linked list,
> > > we can
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 10:36:03 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > I can send a patch this week to update it. Or feel free to send a patch
> > yourself.
>
> You need to reserve an unused ioctl Code and Seq# range within:
>
> Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst
Ug, it's been so
On 01.07.24 10:57, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 22:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On 28 June 2024 17:38:15 BST, Peter Hilber
>> wrote:
>>> On 28.06.24 14:15, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 13:33 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 27.06.24 16:52, David
On 2024-06-30 08:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 13:53:23 +0300
"Dmitry V. Levin" wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:04:32PM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/trace_mmap.h b/include/uapi/linux/trace_mmap.h
index b682e9925539..bd1066754220
On 2024/7/2 21:30, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-07-02 07:55, Hongbo Li wrote:
On 2024/7/2 7:49, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:11:56 +0800
Hongbo Li wrote:
@@ -934,6 +943,12 @@ static int hugetlbfs_setattr(struct mnt_idmap
*idmap,
if (error)
return
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 02:44:31AM -0300, Ágatha Isabelle Chris Moreira Guedes
wrote:
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index 206acdde51f5..fca889f3bcc0 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -1602,3 +1602,23 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
>
>
On 2024-07-02 07:55, Hongbo Li wrote:
On 2024/7/2 7:49, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:11:56 +0800
Hongbo Li wrote:
@@ -934,6 +943,12 @@ static int hugetlbfs_setattr(struct mnt_idmap
*idmap,
if (error)
return error;
+ trace_hugetlbfs_setattr(inode,
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> +static void
> +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> +{
> + static unsigned int session_id;
> +
> + if (uc->session) {
> + uprobe->sessions_cnt++;
> +
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:54:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -668,12 +677,25 @@ static struct uprobe *__find_uprobe(struct inode
> *inode, loff_t offset)
> static struct uprobe *find_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
> {
> struct uprobe *uprobe;
> + unsigned seq;
>
On 2024/7/2 7:49, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:11:56 +0800
Hongbo Li wrote:
@@ -934,6 +943,12 @@ static int hugetlbfs_setattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap,
if (error)
return error;
+ trace_hugetlbfs_setattr(inode, dentry->d_name.len,
+LKML
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:23:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:39:23PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > This patch set, ultimately, switches global uprobes_treelock from RW
> > spinlock
> > to per-CPU RW semaphore, which has better performance and scales
On 30/06/2024 15:29, Raymond Hackley wrote:
> Document samsung,ms013g for Galaxy Grand 2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raymond Hackley
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
If you do not know the process, here is a short
Hello all, and thank you so much for the review, Steven and Masami.
I'm currently considering replacing the `max_ofs` output with
`length`. Please let me know your thoughts.
With the current design, a memory range of an event is an inclusive
range of [ofs, max_ofs + 4096]. I found the `+4096`
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:39:23PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> This patch set, ultimately, switches global uprobes_treelock from RW spinlock
> to per-CPU RW semaphore, which has better performance and scales better under
> contention and multiple parallel threads triggering lots of uprobes.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:39:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 23449a8c5e7e..560cf1ca512a 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -53,9 +53,10 @@
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:28:03PM GMT, Luigi Leonardi via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Marco Pinna
Introduce an optimization in virtio_transport_send_pkt:
when the work queue (send_pkt_queue) is empty the packet is
put directly in the virtqueue reducing latency.
In the following benchmark (pingpong
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:49:41PM GMT, Luigi Leonardi wrote:
Hi all,
+ /* Inside RCU, can't sleep! */
+ ret = mutex_trylock(>tx_lock);
+ if (unlikely(ret == 0))
+ goto out_worker;
I just realized that here I don't release the
+Josj +LKML
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:10:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to
> install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the
> function. This is often going to be `push %rbp` instruction in
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:28:02PM GMT, Luigi Leonardi via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Marco Pinna
Preliminary patch to introduce an optimization to the
enqueue system.
All the code used to enqueue a packet into the virtqueue
is removed from virtio_transport_send_pkt_work()
and moved to the new
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 04:18:31PM GMT, Sudeepgoud Patil wrote:
> This commit introduces tracepoint support for smp2p, enabling
See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, "This patch".
> logging of communication between local and remote processors.
> These tracepoints include information
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 04:18:30PM GMT, Sudeepgoud Patil wrote:
> From: Chris Lew
>
> When using /proc/interrupts to collect statistics on smp2p interrupt
> counts, it is hard to distinguish the different instances of smp2p from
> each other. For example to debug a processor boot issue, the
Hello Ágatha,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 02:44:31AM -0300, Ágatha Isabelle Chris Moreira Guedes
wrote:
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> Thanks for Jookia, heat and ukleinek for the important comments &
> suggestions on this patch prior to submission.
FTR: That happend in the #kernelnewbies irc channel.
>
On 6/27/2024 4:18 PM, Sudeepgoud Patil wrote:
From: Chris Lew
When using /proc/interrupts to collect statistics on smp2p interrupt
counts, it is hard to distinguish the different instances of smp2p from
each other. For example to debug a processor boot issue, the ready and
handover
78 matches
Mail list logo
