Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:39:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
Cc: Teng Qin <qinteng@fb.com>, mingo@redhat.com, bgregg@netflix.com,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, yhs@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip 0/3] Improvements of scheduler related Tracepoints
Message-ID: <20171215073908.myx3wgka7qimcmsg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20171214202044.1629279-1-qinteng@fb.com>
 <20171214204932.GH3326@worktop>
 <1632e487-ee65-b50d-85e5-82f42c69fea1@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1632e487-ee65-b50d-85e5-82f42c69fea1@fb.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1910
Lines: 41

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 07:16:00PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/14/17 12:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:20:41PM -0800, Teng Qin wrote:
> > > This set of commits attempts to improve three scheduler related
> > > Tracepoints: sched_switch, sched_process_fork, sched_process_exit.
> > > 
> > > Firstly, these commit add additional flag values, namely preempt,
> > > clone_flags and group_dead to these Tracepoints, to make information
> > > exposed via the Tracepoints more useful and complete.
> > > 
> > > Secondly, these commits exposes task_struct pointers in these
> > > Tracepoints. The task_struct pointers are arguments of the Tracepoints
> > > and currently only used to compute struct field values. But for BPF
> > > programs attached to these Tracepoints, we may want to read additional
> > > task information via the task_struct pointers. This is currently either
> > > impossible, or we have to make assumption of whether the Tracepoint is
> > > running from previous / parent or next / child, and use current pointer
> > > instead. Exposing the task_struct pointers explicitly makes such use
> > > case easier and more reliable.
> > > 
> > 
> > NAK
> 
> not sure what is the concern here.
> Is it first or second part of the above ?

Definitely the second, but also the first. You know I would have ripped
out all scheduler tracepoints if I could have. They're a pain in the
arse.

A lot of people want to add to the tracepoints, with the end result that
they'll end up a big bloated pile of useless crap. The first part is
just the pieces you want added.

As to the second, that's complete crap; that just makes everything
slower for bodies benefit. If you register a traceprobe you already get
access to these things.

I think your problem is that you use perf to get access to the
tracepoints, which them means you have to do disgusting things like
this.