Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] bpf: control events stored in PERF_EVENT_ARRAY maps trace data output when perf sampling

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> If our task is sampling cycle events during a function is running,
> and if two cores start that function overlap:
> 
> Time:   ...................A
> Core 0: sys_write----\
>                       \
>                        \
> Core 1:             sys_write%return
> Core 2: ................sys_write
> 
> Then without counter at time A it is highly possible that
> BPF program on core 1 and core 2 get conflict with each other.
> The final result is we make some of those events be turned on
> and others turned off. Using atomic counter can avoid this
> problem.

But but, how and why can an eBPF program access a !local event? I
thought we had hard restrictions on that.

--
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/