On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 4:14 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:40 AM Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> > suppresses any data output. Return early from __perf_event_overflow() in
> > this case so it will also suppress event_limit accounting, SIGTRAP
> > generation, and F_ASYNC signalling.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/events/core.c | 10 ++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > index 24a718e7eb98..a329bec42c4d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -9574,6 +9574,11 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> >
> > ret = __perf_event_account_interrupt(event, throttle);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > + if (event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
> > + return ret;
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /*
> > * XXX event_limit might not quite work as expected on inherited
> > * events
> > @@ -9623,10 +9628,7 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> > irq_work_queue(&event->pending_irq);
> > }
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > - if (!(event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs)))
> > -#endif
> > - READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> > + READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> >
>
> Sorry, I haven't followed previous discussions, but why can't this
> change be done as part of patch 1?
The idea was to refactor the code without making any behavior changes
(patches 1 and 2) and then to change the behavior (patch 3).
- Kyle
> > if (*perf_event_fasync(event) && event->pending_kill) {
> > event->pending_wakeup = 1;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
