Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf annotate: Align filename:linenr and more correct summary

[Taeung Song]

On 02/22/2017 08:22 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In the stdio interface, currently 'filename:linenr' infos
> > are confusedly printed in the intervals of assembly code.
> > So fix it.
> >
> > The cause was a 0.5% filter of if statement. After fixed,
> > additionally summary of overhead per srcline is more correct.
> >
> > Before:
> >
> >     # perf annotate --stdio -l
> >
> >   Sorted summary for file /home/taeung/workspace/perf-test/test
> >   ----------------------------------------------
> >
> >      36.57 test.c:38
> >      28.72 test.c:37
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >    Percent |      Source code & Disassembly of test ...
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >       0.21 :        400816:       push   %rbp
> >    test.c:26    1.86 :         400817:       mov    %rsp,%rbp
> >       0.21 :        40081a:       mov    %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
> >       0.21 :        40081d:       mov    %rsi,-0x30(%rbp)
> >
> > After:
> >
> >     # perf annotate --stdio -l
> >
> >   Sorted summary for file /home/taeung/workspace/perf-test/test
> >   ----------------------------------------------
> >
> >      37.40 test.c:38
> >      29.34 test.c:37
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >    Percent |      Source code & Disassembly of test ...
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >    test.c:26
> >       0.21 :        400816:       push   %rbp
> >       1.86 :        400817:       mov    %rsp,%rbp
> >       0.21 :        40081a:       mov    %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
> >       0.21 :        40081d:       mov    %rsi,-0x30(%rbp)
>
> I guess it's just a problem of a missing newline..

I think the problem is not only from a missing newline but also
from 0.5 filtering if statement.

For example,
If just appending new line, the output is as below

       0.21 :        400816:       push   %rbp
    test.c:26
       1.86 :        400817:       mov    %rsp,%rbp
       0.21 :        40081a:       mov    %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
       0.21 :        40081d:       mov    %rsi,-0x30(%rbp)

The reason of the wrong sorting is that only 400817 is matched with 
test.c:26
And the root cause is a if statement filtering smaller values than 0.5.
The if statement prevent other addresses that are less than 0.5
from matching test.c:26

So I eliminated it.

-               if (percent_max <= 0.5)
-                       goto next;

But 400816, 400817, 40081a and 40081d addresses should be matched
with test.c:26. So I think it is better to show as below

    test.c:26
       0.21 :        400816:       push   %rbp
       1.86 :        400817:       mov    %rsp,%rbp
       0.21 :        40081a:       mov    %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
       0.21 :        40081d:       mov    %rsi,-0x30(%rbp)


And I think it is better to rewrite this commit title and message..
I'll change this patch as v2 to clearly understand problem and solution.


Thanks,
Teaung