On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 09:48:58AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 9:30 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 08:19:44AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote: > > > > > I think this would probably work but stealing the bit seems far more > > > complicated than just gating on perf_event_is_tracing(). > > > > perf_event_is_tracing() is something like 3 branches. It is not a simple > > conditional. Combined with that re-load and the wrong return value, this > > all wants a cleanup. > > > > Using that LSB works, it's just that the code aint pretty. > > Maybe we could gate on !event->tp_event instead. Somebody who is more > familiar with this code than me should probably confirm that tp_event > being non-null and perf_event_is_tracing() being true are equivalent > though. > it looks like that's the case, AFAICS tracepoint/kprobe/uprobe events are the only ones having the tp_event pointer set, Masami? fwiw I tried to run bpf selftests with that and it's fine jirka
