Re: [PATCH 2/9] perf tools: Count periods of filtered entries separately

[Namhyung Kim]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:15:18AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:19:07PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> > <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Em Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:43:53PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
>> > >> @@ -749,9 +750,6 @@ int perf_event__preprocess_sample(const union perf_event *event,
>> > >>       if (thread == NULL)
>> > >>               return -1;
>> > >>
>> > >> -     if (thread__is_filtered(thread))
>> > >> -             goto out_filtered;
>> > >> -
>> > >
>> > > What was the intent of moving this test from here...
>> > >
>> > >>       dump_printf(" ... thread: %s:%d\n", thread__comm_str(thread), thread->tid);
>> > >>       /*
>> > >>        * Have we already created the kernel maps for this machine?
>> > >> @@ -766,6 +764,10 @@ int perf_event__preprocess_sample(const union perf_event *event,
>> > >>
>> > >>       thread__find_addr_map(thread, machine, cpumode, MAP__FUNCTION,
>> > >>                             sample->ip, al);
>> > >> +
>> > >> +     if (thread__is_filtered(thread))
>> > >> +             al->filtered |= (1 << HIST_FILTER__THREAD);
>> > >> +
>> > >
>> > > ... to here? At first I thought it was because thread__is_filtered()
>> > > would check something that thread__find_addr_map() was doing, but no,
>> > > its invariant, we can do it here or at the original site, so I'm keeping
>> > > it there, ok?
>> >
>> > It's because thread__find_addr_map() clears al->filtered, so filtering
>> > with -d option won't work.  Maybe we can move initialization of the
>> > al->filtered upto this function.
>>
>> So this is a separate patch with this explanation, I'll add it to the
>> series, thanks for the explanation!
>
> Humm, it really needs to be folded into the patch that does all the
> tests, as before we were just stopping the filters early and thus no
> problem existed, its only now that we apply all the filters that we need
> to be careful in knowing that thread__find_addr_map() is when
> al->filtered gets initialized to zero, right?

Right. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/