[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCHSET 0/8] perf tools: Minimal build without libelf dependency (v2)
Em Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:18:34AM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
> On 6/22/12 9:05 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >2012-06-22 (금), 11:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra:
> >>On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:37 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>>And then I realized that the perf record needs to know about the
> >>>build-id's anyway. :( So I implemented a poor man's version of elf
> >>>parser only for parsing the build-id info.

> >>Why? the very first versions didn't know about any of that nonsense :-)
> >>It works just fine as long as you don't go change binaries around.
> >>
> >>That said, you did the work already, so no objection, just saying
> >>builtids aren't that important.

> >I'm not sure I understood you correctly. But 'perf record' needs to know
> >about the build-id's to save them to for 'perf report' later.
> >And 'perf archive' also needs to know about them to select necessary
> >binaries for the session.

> And build-id's are not required for report (-B option for record).

> Also, the intent is for a small footprint binary for embedded
> systems. On such a system I would expect binaries and libraries to
> be stripped, so no point in running perf-archive.

Right, build ids are not a strict requirement, its just a safeguard,
when available, to prevent WTF moments at post processing time (report,
annotate, etc) if different binaries are used to resolve symbols.

- Arnaldo
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-22 18:21    [W:0.054 / U:1.380 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site