Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:54:35 -0200 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Do not fail on processing out of order event |
| |
Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > SNIP > > > > > - pr_oe_time(timestamp, "out of order event"); > > > > + pr_oe_time(timestamp, "out of order event\n"); > > > > pr_oe_time(oe->last_flush, "last flush, last_flush_type %d\n", > > > > oe->last_flush_type); > > > > > > > > - /* We could get out of order messages after forced flush. */ > > > > - if (oe->last_flush_type != OE_FLUSH__HALF) > > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > > + s->stats.nr_unordered_events++; > > > > Btw., in the forced flush case we'll get out of order events that > > are 'expected'. Shouldn't we count them separately and not warn > > about them, or so? > > hum, we warned about them anyway, we just did not fail processing.. > and the impact of both cases should be the same.. it's just at the > forced flush we expected/allowed out of order events > > so I think it's ok to share the same counter and warn about > them the same way
Sure? See my other message, aren't those two kinds of reordering? I.e. one that we can "fix" (aka reorder as part of a flush), one that we can't?
> > > > > > + if (session->stats.nr_unordered_events != 0) { > > > > + ui__warning("%u out of order events recorded.\n", > > > > + session->stats.nr_unordered_events); > > > > + } > > > > Nit: I'd suggest keeping the message printout on a single line: > > > > if (session->stats.nr_unordered_events != 0) { > > ui__warning("%u out of order events recorded.\n", session->stats.nr_unordered_events); > > > > as IMHO the cure for this col80 linebreak checkpatch warning is > > worse than the disease! :-) > > ok ;-) > > > > > Barring those details: > > > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > thanks, > jirka
| |