Re: [PATCH] perf stat: fix per-pkg event reporting bug

[Jiri Olsa]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
> >> +      * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
> >> +      * we may run into a situation where the first CPU in a package
> >> +      * is not running anything, yet the second is, and this function
> >> +      * would mark the package as used after the first CPU and would
> >> +      * not read the values from the second CPU.
> >> +      */
> >> +     if (!(vals->run && vals->ena))
> >> +             return 0;
> >> +
> >>       s = cpu_map__get_socket(cpus, cpu);
> >>       if (s < 0)
> >>               return -1;
> >> @@ -235,7 +247,7 @@ process_counter_values(struct perf_stat_config *config, struct perf_evsel *evsel
> >>       static struct perf_counts_values zero;
> >>       bool skip = false;
> >>
> >> -     if (check_per_pkg(evsel, cpu, &skip)) {
> >> +     if (check_per_pkg(evsel, aggr, cpu, &skip)) {
> >
> > should we pass 'count' instead o 'aggr' ?
> >
> the reason I passed counts_values is in case this function needs to be
> called from other places which do
> not use aggr mode.

sure, but 'aggr' is being computed within process_counter_values

process_counter_values gets 'count' argument with values read
for given cpu/thread for further processing, and it seems to
me that 'count' values should be passed to check_per_pkg

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/