Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/34] perf clang: Builtin clang and perfhook support | From | "Wangnan (F)" <> | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:03:38 +0800 |
| |
On 2016/11/15 12:57, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> wrote: >> This is version 2 of perf builtin clang patch series. Compare to v1, >> add an exciting feature: jit compiling perf hook functions. This >> features allows script writer report result through BPF map in a >> customized way. > looks great. > >> SEC("perfhook:record_start") >> void record_start(void *ctx) >> { >> int perf_pid = getpid(), key = G_perf_pid; >> printf("Start count, perfpid=%d\n", perf_pid); >> jit_helper__map_update_elem(ctx, &GVALS, &key, &perf_pid, 0); > the name, I think, is too verbose. > Why not to keep them as bpf_map_update_elem > even for user space programs?
I can make it shorter by give it a better name or use a wrapper like
BPF_MAP(update_elem)
but the only thing I can't do is to make perfhook and in-kernel script use a uniform name for these bpf_map functions, because bpf_map_update_elem is already defined:
"static long (*bpf_map_update_elem)(void *, void *, void *, unsigned long) = (void *)2;\n"
>> SEC("perfhook:record_end") >> void record_end(void *ctx) >> { >> u64 key = -1, value; >> while (!jit_helper__map_get_next_key(ctx, &syscall_counter, &key, &key)) { >> jit_helper__map_lookup_elem(ctx, &syscall_counter, &key, &value); >> printf("syscall %ld\tcount: %ld\n", (long)key, (long)value); > this loop will be less verbose as well.
| |