Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:07:00 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/10] perf, tools, report: Add processing for cycle histograms |
| |
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 03:02:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 07:37:30PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > hum, so this is assuming that having cycles fort 1st entry > > > means there'll be for the rest? > > > Also in that case why is there the '!= cycles' check within > > > addr_map_symbol__account_cycles ? > > > > > It means there might be. It's just a short cut. But rarely > > branches may still have 0 cycles, so it still needs to be > > checked later. > > > > In theory it could miss a valid one if the first happened > > to be zero, but that seems very unlikely. > > so having 'bs->entries[0].flags.cycles' is the only way > of knowing that we have the feature enabled?
Yes.
In theory we could add caps in sysfs like the PT code, but that's not implemented currently.
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
| |