Messages in this thread | | | From | Mathieu Poirier <> | Date | Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:23:46 -0700 | Subject | Re: perf record: regression with latest PT fix |
| |
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, ×tamp); > - if (ret) > + if (ret != -1) > return ret; > > Shouldn't that be: > > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp); > - if (ret) > + if (ret && ret != -1) > return ret;
Of course!
Ingo, how do you want to proceed? Should I send a V3?
> > >> >>> 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? >> >
| |