Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bpf: Implement bpf_perf_event_sample_enable/disable() helpers

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 10/12/15 8:27 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> Then how to avoid racing? For example, when one core disabling all events
> in a map, another core is enabling all of them. This racing may causes
> sereval
> perf events in a map dump samples while other events not. To avoid such
> racing
> I think some locking must be introduced, then cost is even higher.
>
> The reason why we introduce an atomic pointer is because each operation
> should
> controls a set of events, not one event, due to the per-cpu manner of
> perf events.

why 'set disable' is needed ?
the example given in cover letter shows the use case where you want
to receive samples only within sys_write() syscall.
The example makes sense, but sys_write() is running on this cpu, so just
disabling it on the current one is enough.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/