Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Sep 2015 01:29:34 +0900 | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] perf probe: Split add_perf_probe_events() |
| |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:10:16AM +0000, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI wrote: > Hi Namhyung, > > From: Namhyung Kim [mailto:namhyung@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Namhyung Kim > > > >Hi Masami, > > > >On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:00:07AM +0000, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI wrote: > >> >From: Namhyung Kim [mailto:namhyung@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Namhyung Kim > >> >The del_perf_probe_events() uses strfilter, but I think it can be > >> >problematic if other instances or users are using similar events at > >> >the same time. > >> > >> Yeah, since perf probe doesn't lock the ftrace, there should be a > >> timing bug, but it can be fixed easily by ignoring -ENOENT. :) > > > >By ignoring -ENOENT? Are you saying that there's a race between two > >deleters? Yes, of course, but I think that the bug will hit an adder > >and a deleter especially if automatic probing is used (by eBPF and/or > >SDT recording). > > So, I don't think we need the automatic event removing. Instead, I'd like to > suggest to keep it on the list.
But why? Do you want reuse the probes for next record session?
I think if something is generated automatically, it should be removed automatically..
Thanks, Namhyung
| |