Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 3 May 2021 16:09:45 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf-stat: introduce bpf_counter_ops->disable() |
| |
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:40:01PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
SNIP
> >>>>> #include "../perf.h" > >>>>> @@ -421,6 +422,9 @@ static void __evlist__disable(struct evlist *evlist, char *evsel_name) > >>>>> if (affinity__setup(&affinity) < 0) > >>>>> return; > >>>>> > >>>>> + evlist__for_each_entry(evlist, pos) > >>>>> + bpf_counter__disable(pos); > >>>> > >>>> I was wondering why you don't check evsel__is_bpf like > >>>> for the enable case.. and realized that we don't skip > >>>> bpf evsels in __evlist__enable and __evlist__disable > >>>> like we do in read_affinity_counters > >>>> > >>>> so I guess there's extra affinity setup and bunch of > >>>> wrong ioctls being called? > >>> > >>> We actually didn't do wrong ioctls because the following check: > >>> > >>> if (... || !pos->core.fd) > >>> continue; > >>> > >>> in __evlist__enable and __evlist__disable. That we don't allocate > >>> core.fd for is_bpf events. > >>> > >>> It is probably good to be more safe with an extra check of > >>> evsel__is_bpf(). But it is not required with current code. > >> > >> hum, but it will do all the affinity setup no? for no reason, > >> if there's no non-bpb event > > > > Yes, it will do the affinity setup. Let me see how to get something > > like all_counters_use_bpf here (or within builtin-stat.c). > > > > Would something like the following work? It is not clean (skipping some > useful logic in __evlist__[enable|disable]). But it seems to work in the > tests.
sorry for late reply, but I can't no longer apply this:
patching file tools/perf/builtin-stat.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 572. Hunk #2 FAILED at 581. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file tools/perf/builtin-stat.c.rej patching file tools/perf/util/evlist.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 425. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file tools/perf/util/evlist.c.rej
ah, I see the patchset got already merged.. not sure why I'm doing review then ;-)
thanks, jirka
| |