Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf record: Enable off-cpu analysis with BPF

[Hao Luo]

Hi Namhyung,

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:05 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>

[...]

>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/perf/Makefile.perf               |   1 +
>  tools/perf/builtin-record.c            |  21 +++
>  tools/perf/util/Build                  |   1 +
>  tools/perf/util/bpf_off_cpu.c          | 208 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/off_cpu.bpf.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++
>  tools/perf/util/off_cpu.h              |  22 +++
>  6 files changed, 390 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf_off_cpu.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/off_cpu.bpf.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/off_cpu.h
>

[...]

> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/off_cpu.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/off_cpu.bpf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2bc6f7cc59ea
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/off_cpu.bpf.c
>
> +struct {
> +       __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
> +       __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
> +       __uint(value_size, sizeof(struct tstamp_data));
> +       __uint(max_entries, MAX_ENTRIES);
> +} tstamp SEC(".maps");

I think using task local storage for this tstamp would be more
efficient. There is an example in
tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.bpf.c