On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:25:21 +0200 Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Hmm, I think any dynamic_events has tp_event (is struct trace_event_call *) because it represents the event itself. But yes, if the event is working like a trace-event, it should have tp_event. So you can use it instead perf_event_is_tracing(). Thank you, > > fwiw I tried to run bpf selftests with that and it's fine > > jirka > -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
