Re: [PATCHSET 00/17] perf report: Add -F option for specifying output fields (v4)

[Namhyung Kim]

Hi Don,

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:35:55 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 08:38:10AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Don,
>> 
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:27:35 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:13:35AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> >> >        /*
>> >> >         * Addresses with no major/minor numbers are assumed to be
>> >> >         * anonymous in userspace.  Sort those on pid then address.
>> >> >         *
>> >> >         * The kernel and non-zero major/minor mapped areas are
>> >> >         * assumed to be unity mapped.  Sort those on address.
>> >> >         */
>> >> >
>> >> >        if ((left->cpumode != PERF_RECORD_MISC_KERNEL) &&
>> >> >            !l_map->maj && !l_map->min && !l_map->ino &&
>> >> >            !l_map->ino_generation) {
>> >> >                /* userspace anonymous */
>> >> >
>> >> >                if (left->thread->pid_ > right->thread->pid_) return -1;
>> >> >                if (left->thread->pid_ < right->thread->pid_) return 1;
>> >> 
>> >> Isn't it necessary to check whether the address is in a same map in case
>> >> of anon pages?  I mean the daddr.al_addr is a map-relative offset so it
>> >> might have same value for different maps.
>> >
>> > That's why I sort on pids here.  Because the anon address might have the
>> > same value for different maps.  The thought was to group all the pid
>> > addresses together to keep things seperated.
>> >
>> > Do you see a different way to solve the problem?  I am not sure al_addr
>> > vs. addr will make much difference here.
>> 
>> I'm not saying to get rid of the pid check, I'm saying that it might
>> need to add another check for maps (i.e. start address) as there might
>> be many maps in a single address space.
>
> Hmm, I guess I would need to see an example.  While I agree there might be
> many maps in a single address space (/proc/<pid>/maps demonstrates that),
> I understood them to map to a unique location (ie no overlap) unless they
> are shared.
>
> I am willing to believe I missed scenario when sorting, I just can't think
> of it (so I wouldn't know how to fix it).  That's why I was looking for an
> example to make it more obvious to me.  Sorry for being slow..

I'm also sorry for being late.  Looking at the code, it seems to use
identity__map_ip() for anon maps so my concern is bogus.  Please just
forget about it and keep going.  Sorry for interrupting your work..

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/