[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Re: [perf/core PATCH v2 3/4] perf buildid-cache: Add new buildid cache if update target is not cached
(2015/02/11 23:57), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:49:28AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:18:56PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
>>> Add new buildid cache if the update target file is not cached.
>>> This can happen when an old binary is replaced by new one
>>> after caching the old one. In this case, user sees his operation
>>> just failed. But it does not look straight, since user just
>>> pass the binary "path", not "build-id".
>>> ----
>>> # ./perf buildid-cache --add ./perf
>>> (update ./perf to new binary)
>>> # ./perf buildid-cache --update ./perf
>>> ./perf wasn't in the cache
>> Humm, without re-reading the original motivation for the '--update'
>> operation I would think it was about finding all build-ids in the cache
>> that are for a binary with that path, remove them and insert this new
>> one, no?
>> Checking...
> commit eeb49845425375481f14c0e5721f88242642e88e
> Author: Namhyung Kim <>
> Date: Thu Feb 7 18:02:11 2013 +0900
> perf buildid-cache: Add --update option
> When adding vmlinux file to build-id cache, it'd be fail since kallsyms
> dso with a same build-id was already added by perf record.
> So one needs to remove the kallsyms first to add vmlinux into the cache.
> Add --update option for doing it at once.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So this was really a 'remove the file that is pointed by this build-id' and
> replace with this new file, i.e. there is both a vmlinux _and_ a kallsyms file
> for the same build-id. When wanting to use one or the other and existing a
> link in the cache, one uses this --update thing.
> That is ok for cases where there are multiple symtabs in the cache for a given
> build-id, but as you mention above, it is confusing for updating by _pathname_.
> What a 'update' by pathname would mean? I guess it would be to remove 'old',
> i.e. 'not up-to-date' stuff, i.e. older build-ids that that pathname had in the
> past, and leave just this new stuff.

> The way you did it make '--update path' be equivalent to '--add path'.

Right, if there is no same buildid cache, it does that.
Actually, this is a kind of middle point solution. As far as I can see,
buildid-cache is (currently) used for annotating the old, or remote
In that case, we may have several different versions of buildid-cache(binaries)
for one pathname. If --update destructively updates all caches related to
given pathname, it also means to loose annotatability(?) on old or remote I think that may not the user wants.
So, if user really wants to clean up their cache, he/she can use --purge
And I think it would be better that --update just adds given current binary
to cache if there is no cache.

Thank you,

> - 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

Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-12 07:41    [W:0.097 / U:3.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site