On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 06:43:46PM +0300, Andrew Vagin escreveu:
>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 10:10:32AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Andrey Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Would it make more sense to have a new syscall instead? You could
>> > even still use nlattr formatting for the syscall results.
>>
>> Andy, thank you for the feedback. I got your points. I need time to
>> think about them. I suppose that a new syscall can be more suitable in
>> this case, and I need time to form a vision of it. If you have any ideas
>> or thoughts, I would be glad to know about them.
>
> If a new syscall would indeed be better for this, then using
> sys_perf_event_open and on one of the perf_event_attr flip a bit to ask
> for those PERF_RECORD_{COMM,FORK,PERF_RECORD_MMAP2, etc} to be generated
> in the perf buffer could make it reuse all the userspace tooling, with
> really minimal change: flip the bit, don't synthesize it from /proc.
>
Hmm, that's an interesting thought.
Andrew, would that work for you?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
