lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [EXPERIENCE] My experience on using perf record BPF filter on a real usecase


On 2015/6/10 14:42, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 6/4/15 3:17 AM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to share my exprience on using 'perf record' BPF filter in a
>> real usecase to show the power and shortcome in my patch series:
>
> thanks for sharing!
>
>> Here is another inconvenience. Currently I only concern on write
>> syscall issued by iozone. However, without '-a' I'm unable to collect
>> information of the locker. If I want to filter sys_{enter,exit}_write
>> belong to iozone out using eBPF, I need to implement another function
>> like BPF_FUNC_git_comm. Another method is to use perf '--filter' after
>> the two events. However it looks strange to use two filter mechanisms
>> together. This time I choose to do filtering offline using perf script.
>
> that doesn't sound clean.
> btw, I've been playing for a while with
> bpf_get_current_task_info() helper:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ast/bpf.git/commit/?id=c5453ffa107ddf95a91920cc947bb8bf9eab16d6
>
> I think it's a better mechanism.
> The user can get pid only via:
> u32 pid = 0;
> bpf_get_current_task_info(&pid, sizeof(pid));
> or full pid + comm + future fields via full 'struct bpf_task_info'
> Thoughts?
>

Looks good. Thank you for your information!




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-10 09:21    [W:0.055 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site