Re: [PATCH 08/14] perf report: Cache cumulative callchains

[Jiri Olsa]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 01:29:42PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:56:10PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> >  	 * double accounting.
> > @@ -501,8 +528,29 @@ iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(struct add_entry_iter *iter,
> >  {
> >  	struct perf_evsel *evsel = iter->evsel;
> >  	struct perf_sample *sample = iter->sample;
> > +	struct cumulative_cache *ccache = iter->priv;
> >  	struct hist_entry *he;
> >  	int err = 0;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Check if there's duplicate entries in the callchain.
> > +	 * It's possible that it has cycles or recursive calls.
> > +	 */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
> > +		if (sort__has_sym) {
> > +			if (ccache[i].sym == al->sym)
> > +				return 0;
> > +		} else {
> > +			/* Not much we can do - just compare the dso. */
> > +			if (ccache[i].dso == al->map->dso)
> > +				return 0;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> hum, do we want to prevent recursion totaly?
> how about intended recursion?

ugh... just managed to read the whole patch,
please forget above comment ;-)

> 
> also should the dso be checked together with sym?
> because the symbol is defined like dso::sym
> 
> jirka
--
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/