Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2022 14:26:44 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf stat: fix unexpected delay behaviour | From | James Clark <> |
| |
On 13/12/2022 16:40, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:44 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > <acme@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Em Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 09:20:37AM +0100, James Clark escreveu: >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2022 17:12, Adrián Herrera Arcila wrote: >>>> The described --delay behaviour is to delay the enablement of events, but >>>> not the execution of the command, if one is passed, which is incorrectly >>>> the current behaviour. >>>> >>>> This patch decouples the enablement from the delay, and enables events >>>> before or after launching the workload dependent on the options passed >>>> by the user. This code structure is inspired by that in perf-record, and >>>> tries to be consistent with it. >>>> >>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/7BFD066E-B0A8-49D4-B635-379328F0CF4C@fb.com >>>> Fixes: d0a0a511493d ("perf stat: Fix forked applications enablement of counters") >>>> Signed-off-by: Adrián Herrera Arcila <adrian.herrera@arm.com> >>>> --- >>>> tools/perf/builtin-stat.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >>> >>> Looks good to me. Fixes the counter delay issue and the code is pretty >>> similar to perf record now. Although I would wait for Leo's or Song's >>> comment as well because they were involved. >> >> I think I didn't notice Leo's ack, it still applies, so I'm doing it >> now. > > I think the BPF counters should be enabled/disabled together.
I did notice that difference between the two, but I wasn't sure of the exact reason that it was done that way on Adrián's version. It seems like it's not separated in perf record so maybe you are right.
> > Thanks, > Namhyung
| |