Re: [PATCH] Perf: bug fix: distinguish between rename and exec

[David Ahern]

On 2/15/12 5:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 20:56 -0800, Luigi Semenzato wrote:
> > This makes it possible for "perf report" to distinguish between an exec and
> > a rename (for instance from prctl(PR_SET_NAME)).  Currently a similar COMM
> > record is produced for the two events.  Perf report assumes all COMM records
> > are execs and discards the old mappings.  Without mappings, perf report
> > can no longer correlate sampled IPs to the functions containing them,
> > and collapses all samples into a single bucket.
> >
> > This change maintains backward compatibility in both directions, i.e. old
> > version of perf will continue to work on new perf.data files in the same
> > way, and new versions of perf on old data files.
> >
> > Another solution would be to not send COMM records for renames.  Although
> > it seems reasonable, it might break existing setups.
>
> Uhm, didn't you argue its already broken?
>
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -1052,7 +1052,7 @@ char *get_task_comm(char *buf, struct task_struct *tsk)
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_task_comm);
> >
> > -void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
> > +void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf, bool is_rename)
> >   {
> >   	task_lock(tsk);
> >
> > @@ -1068,7 +1068,7 @@ void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
> >   	wmb();
> >   	strlcpy(tsk->comm, buf, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> >   	task_unlock(tsk);
> > -	perf_event_comm(tsk);
> > +	perf_event_comm(tsk, is_rename);
> >   }
>
> I really dislike changing generic code purely for the purpose of
> instrumentation like this. Better to pull perf_event_comm() out of here
> if you want to change semantics.
>
> Personally I couldn't care less about renames, I think they're a waste
> of time, so I'm ok with the simple patch moving the perf_event_comm()
> into setup_new_exec() and possibly renaming it to perf_event_exec().
>
> Acme, do you care about renames?

I'm not Acme, but I do care. We use a lot of processes with named 
threads that give users an idea about the function of a particular thread.

I do not understand the use case targeted by the patch -- what kind of 
processes run for some amount of time and then decide to change task names?

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/