Messages in this thread | | | From | Song Liu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf-stat: introduce bpf_counter_ops->disable() | Date | Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:18:57 +0000 |
| |
> On Apr 26, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 02:43:33PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > SNIP > >> +static inline int bpf_counter__disable(struct evsel *evsel __maybe_unused) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> static inline int bpf_counter__read(struct evsel *evsel __maybe_unused) >> { >> return -EAGAIN; >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c >> index d29a8a118973c..e71041c890102 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c >> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ >> #include "evsel.h" >> #include "debug.h" >> #include "units.h" >> +#include "bpf_counter.h" >> #include <internal/lib.h> // page_size >> #include "affinity.h" >> #include "../perf.h" >> @@ -421,6 +422,9 @@ static void __evlist__disable(struct evlist *evlist, char *evsel_name) >> if (affinity__setup(&affinity) < 0) >> return; >> >> + evlist__for_each_entry(evlist, pos) >> + bpf_counter__disable(pos); > > I was wondering why you don't check evsel__is_bpf like > for the enable case.. and realized that we don't skip > bpf evsels in __evlist__enable and __evlist__disable > like we do in read_affinity_counters > > so I guess there's extra affinity setup and bunch of > wrong ioctls being called?
We actually didn't do wrong ioctls because the following check:
if (... || !pos->core.fd) continue;
in __evlist__enable and __evlist__disable. That we don't allocate core.fd for is_bpf events.
It is probably good to be more safe with an extra check of evsel__is_bpf(). But it is not required with current code.
Thanks, Song
[...]
| |