Hi Andi,

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 10:05 PM Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > @@ -57,6 +59,9 @@ static int saved_value_cmp(struct rb_node *rb_node, const void *entry)
> >       if (a->ctx != b->ctx)
> >               return a->ctx - b->ctx;
> >
> > +     if (a->cgrp != b->cgrp)
> > +             return (char *)a->cgrp < (char *)b->cgrp ? -1 : +1;
>
> This means the sort order will depend on heap randomization,
> which will make it harder to debug.
>
> Better use something stable like the inode number of the cgroup.

I don't think they are used for sorting.  It's just to compare to find a
matching event value.

For heap randomization, we already used the same technique
for evsel and runtime_stat pointers.  I can make it use cgroup id
but not sure it is really worth it.

>
> Do we have the same problem with other filters?

I'm not aware of it.

>
> The rest of the patch looks good to me.

Thanks for the review!

Namhyung