lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 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, &timestamp);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret != -1)
> return ret;
>
> Shouldn't that be:
>
> ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, &timestamp);
> - 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?
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-18 16:24    [W:0.061 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site