lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: perf record: regression with latest PT fix
Em Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:23:46AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> On 18 December 2017 at 07:25, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 18/12/17 15:28, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:03:53AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The following patch:
> >>>
> >>> f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces
> >>
> >> Cc'ing Adrian in case he missed the patch.
> >
> > Doesn't seem to have much to do with Intel PT, but the patch logic looks wrong:
> >
> > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, &timestamp);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret != -1)
> > return ret;
> >
> > Shouldn't that be:
> >
> > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, &timestamp);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret && ret != -1)
> > return ret;
>
> Of course!
>
> Ingo, how do you want to proceed? Should I send a V3?

Probably, I've run into this as well, as has Ingo, after I reverted it,
things got back working.

Back to vacations... :-)

- Arnaldo

> >>> is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report
> >>> when running simple perf record commands:
> >>>
> >>> $ perf record -e cycles noploop
> >>>
> >>> Reverting the patch fixes the problem.
> >>>
> >>> Are you seeing this as well?
> >>
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-18 17:45    [W:0.068 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site