On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:32:05AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 12:56 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Increase misses stats in case bpf array execution is skipped > > because of recursion check in trace_call_bpf. > > > > Adding bpf_prog_missed_array that increase misses counts for > > all bpf programs in bpf_prog_array. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > include/linux/bpf.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h > > index 23a73f52c7bc..71154e991730 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h > > @@ -2932,6 +2932,22 @@ static inline int sock_map_bpf_prog_query(const union bpf_attr *attr, > > #endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */ > > #endif /* CONFIG_NET && CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */ > > > > +static __always_inline void > > +bpf_prog_missed_array(const struct bpf_prog_array *array) > > The name hardly explains the purpose. > Please give it a better name. > Maybe bpf_prog_inc_misses_counters ? > Just extra "s". I thought making it similar to bpf_prog_run_array, but bpf_prog_inc_misses_counters sounds better thanks, jirka
