Re: [PATCH] perf lock: fix sorting by wait_min

[Marcin Slusarz]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:47:15PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> if lock was uncontended, wait_time_min == ULLONG_MAX, so we need to handle
> this case differently to show high wait times first
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/perf/builtin-lock.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c b/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c
> index 0305a40..812ad26 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c
> @@ -202,9 +202,20 @@ static struct thread_stat *thread_stat_findnew_first(u32 tid)
>  SINGLE_KEY(nr_acquired)
>  SINGLE_KEY(nr_contended)
>  SINGLE_KEY(wait_time_total)
> -SINGLE_KEY(wait_time_min)
>  SINGLE_KEY(wait_time_max)
>  
> +static int lock_stat_key_wait_time_min(struct lock_stat *one,
> +					struct lock_stat *two)
> +{
> +	u64 s1 = one->wait_time_min;
> +	u64 s2 = two->wait_time_min;
> +	if (s1 == ULLONG_MAX)
> +		s1 = 0;
> +	if (s2 == ULLONG_MAX)
> +		s2 = 0;
> +	return s1 > s2;
> +}
> +
>  struct lock_key {
>  	/*
>  	 * name: the value for specify by user
> -- 

Anything wrong with this patch?
I can't find it in linux-next.

Marcin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/