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

[Don Zickus]

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:05:58PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 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..

No worries.  Always good to have an extra pair of eyes.

I am a little stuck about where to go.  I think it might make sense to
submit this as a standalone patch (despite the possible group limitation
we are discussing).  Thoughts?

Cheers,
Don
--
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/