Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:08AM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>>
>> > Well, we could 'force' inject a VMA into the process's address space, we
>> > do that for a few other things as well. It also makes for less
>> > exceptions with the ac
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:08AM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>> > At which point we _should_ start failing fork(), which is a somewhat
>> > unexpected, and undesirable side-effect.
>>
>> I'm not sure I see why we should fail fork() when
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:08AM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>
> > Well, we could 'force' inject a VMA into the process's address space, we
> > do that for a few other things as well. It also makes for less
> > exceptions with the actual core dumping.
>
> Threads
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> Well, we could 'force' inject a VMA into the process's address space, we
> do that for a few other things as well. It also makes for less
> exceptions with the actual core dumping.
Threads then will end up with the same buffer (through sharing the mm),
but they can't rea
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:26:15AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Afaict there's no actual need to hide the AUX buffer for this sampling
> > stuff; the user knows about all this and can simply mmap() the AUX part.
> > The sample could either point to locations in the AUX buffer, or (as I
> > think th
> Afaict there's no actual need to hide the AUX buffer for this sampling
> stuff; the user knows about all this and can simply mmap() the AUX part.
> The sample could either point to locations in the AUX buffer, or (as I
> think this code does) memcpy bits out.
This would work for perf, but not fo
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:27:22PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> > Afaict there's no actual need to hide the AUX buffer for this sampling
>> > stuff; the user knows about all this and can simply mmap() the AUX part.
>>
>> Yes, you're right here. We could also re-us
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:27:22PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> > Afaict there's no actual need to hide the AUX buffer for this sampling
> > stuff; the user knows about all this and can simply mmap() the AUX part.
>
> Yes, you're right here. We could also re-use the AUX record, adding a
> ne
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:27:21PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> In order to be able to allocate perf ring buffers in non-mmap path, we
>> need to make sure we can still account the memory to the user and that
>> they don't exceed their mlock limit.
>>
>> This patc
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:27:21PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> In order to be able to allocate perf ring buffers in non-mmap path, we
> need to make sure we can still account the memory to the user and that
> they don't exceed their mlock limit.
>
> This patch moves ring buffer memory accou
In order to be able to allocate perf ring buffers in non-mmap path, we
need to make sure we can still account the memory to the user and that
they don't exceed their mlock limit.
This patch moves ring buffer memory accounting down the rb_alloc() path
so that its callers won't have to worry about i
11 matches
Mail list logo
