Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] perf trace: Allocate syscall stats only if summary is on

From: Namhyung Kim
Date: Tue Feb 04 2025 - 14:21:33 EST


On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 07:59:01AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 6:59 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:57:00PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 7:05 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The syscall stats are used only when summary is requested. Let's avoid
> > > > unnecessary operations. Pass 'trace' pointer to check summary and give
> > > > output file together.
> > >
> > > I don't think this last sentence makes sense.
> >
> > Thanks for your review. I'd say: Pass 'trace' pointer instead of doing
> > 'summary' option and 'output' file pointer separately.
>
> This still doesn't make sense. There is lazier initialization:
> ```
> - ttrace->syscall_stats = intlist__new(NULL);
> + if (trace->summary)
> + ttrace->syscall_stats = intlist__new(NULL);
> ```
> and there are functions that take a FILE* but now we're going to use
> the one in trace instead:

Yep, those FILE* (fp) was from trace->output.


> ```
> @@ -1568,7 +1569,7 @@ static struct thread_trace *thread__trace(struct
> thread *thread, FILE *fp)
>
> return ttrace;
> fail:
> - color_fprintf(fp, PERF_COLOR_RED,
> + color_fprintf(trace->output, PERF_COLOR_RED,
> "WARNING: not enough memory, dropping samples!\n");
> return NULL;
> ```
> So why does the one passed to trace still exist? Unfortunately names
> like "fp" and "output" are not intention revealing.

I think "fp" is a conventional name for file pointers (probably from
K&R?).

>
> Anyway, from the commit message and the code I don't understand what
> this change is trying to do.

I don't know where you didn't get it. Apparently my English is not good
enough. So this commit does two things.

1. check trace->summary before allocating syscall_stats
2. change signature of thread__trace from (thread, fp) to (thread,
trace) so that it can use trace->output (fp) and trace->summary.

I thought the change #2 is trivial enough to be in the same commit. But
I can split that if you want.

Thanks,
Namhyung