Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf record: Add 8-byte aligned event type PERF_RECORD_COMPRESSED2

[Chun-Tse Shao]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 1:35 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 09:46:40AM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 01:17:46PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:52:09PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Checking the discussion and the patch.
> > >
> > > My first impression yesterday when I saw this on the smartphone was: how
> > > will an old perf binary handle the new PERF_RECORD_COMPRESSED2? Will it
> > > ignore it while emitting a warning, since it can be skipped and then
> > > what we will get a partial view?
> > >
> > > Having some session output showing how an older perf binary handles
> > > PERF_RECORD_COMPRESS2 would be informative.
> >
> > I think it'll show the below warning:
> >
> >   <offset> [<size>]: failed to process type: 83
>
> Right that is what I got:
>
> ⬢ [acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ perf.old script -i /tmp/perf.data.ck8
> 0xbf0 [0x250]: failed to process type: 83 [Invalid argument]
> ⬢ [acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
>
> I think we should change that to something more informative, like:
>
> 0xbf0 [0x250]: failed to process unknown type 83, please update perf.
>
> And then does it stop at that record it doesn't grok?
>
>         if ((skip = perf_session__process_event(session, event, head, "pipe")) < 0) {
>                 pr_err("%#" PRIx64 " [%#x]: failed to process type: %d\n",
>                        head, event->header.size, event->header.type);
>                 err = -EINVAL;
>                 goto out_err;
>         }
>
>         head += size;
>
> So we're stopping there.
>
> Maybe we can just warn and skip?

Thank you Arnaldo, it is a good suggestion and I will work on this later.

-CT

>
> Anyway, the series as is seems ok.
>
> I'll test a bit more and send my Tested-by
>
> - Arnaldo