On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 02:18:49PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 12:14 PM Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> > suppresses any data output. This allows it to suppress I/O availability
> > signals too.
>
> make sense, just one question below
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/events/core.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > index b704d83a28b2..34d7b19d45eb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -10417,8 +10417,10 @@ static void bpf_overflow_handler(struct perf_event *event,
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > out:
> > __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> > - if (!ret)
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + event->pending_kill = 0;
> > return;
> > + }
>
> What's the distinction between event->pending_kill and
> event->pending_wakeup? Should we do something about pending_wakeup?
> Asking out of complete ignorance of all these perf specifics.
>
I think zeroing pending_kill is enough.. when it's set the perf code
sets pending_wakeup to call perf_event_wakeup in irq code that wakes
up event's ring buffer readers and sends sigio if pending_kill is set
jirka
>
> >
> > event->orig_overflow_handler(event, data, regs);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
