Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] perf: Implement perf_output_addr()

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 10:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:21 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm still not sure what you mean here by this multiplexing. Is
> > > > this about per cpu multiplexing?
> > > 
> > > Suppose there's two events attached to the same tracepoint. Will you
> > > write the tracepoint twice and risk different data in each, or will you
> > > do it once and copy it into each buffer?
> > 
> > Is this because the same function deals with the same tracepoint, and
> > has difficulty in knowing which event it is dealing with?
> 
> No, but suppose the tracepoint has a racy expression in it. Having to
> evaluate { assign; } multiple times could yield different results, which
> in turn means you have to run the filter multiple times too, etc..

I'm still a bit confused by what you mean here. Could you show an
example?

> 
> Although I suppose you could delay the commit of the first even and copy
> from there into the next events, but that might give rather messy code.
> 
> > Note, the shrinking of the TRACE_EVENT() code that I pushed (and I'm
> > hoping makes it to 35 since it lays the ground work for lots of features
> > on top of TRACE_EVENT()), allows you to pass private data to each probe
> > registered to the tracepoint. Letting the same function handle two
> > different activities, or different tracepoints.
> 
> tracepoint_probe_register() is useless, it requires scheduling. I
> currently register a probe on pref_event creation and then maintain a
> per-cpu hlist of active events.

When is perf_event creation? When the user runs the code or at boot up?

> 
> > > > There is another problem. We need something like
> > > > perf_output_discard() in case the filter reject the event (which
> > > > must be filled for this check to happen).
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I utterly hate that, I opted to let anything with a filter take
> > > the slow path. Not only would I have to add a discard, but I'd have to
> > > decrement the counter as well, which is a big no-no.
> > 
> > Hmm, this would impact performance on system wide recording of events
> > that are filtered. One would think adding a filter would speed things
> > up, not slow it down.
> 
> Depends, actually running the filter and backing out might take more
> time than simply logging it, esp if you've already done all of the work
> and only lack a commit.

Hmm, could be, don't know for sure. I just want to keep the macro magic
to a minimum ;-)

-- Steve