From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757967Ab1ANQto (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:49:44 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:46964 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757650Ab1ANQtj (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:49:39 -0500 From: Thomas Renninger Organization: SUSE Products GmbH To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: perf timechart broken Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:49:36 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-18-desktop; KDE/4.5.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, LKML References: <201101071104.37576.trenn@suse.de> <20110111114951.GA8564@ghostprotocols.net> <20110111145134.GA11968@ghostprotocols.net> In-Reply-To: <20110111145134.GA11968@ghostprotocols.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201101141749.36716.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 11 January 2011 15:51:34 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:49:51AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > Em Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:55:36AM +0100, Thomas Renninger escreveu: > > > On Tuesday 11 January 2011 02:36:28 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > It's too late for .37, but it's fine, we just need to add > > > > a "Cc: stable@kernel.org" tag in the patch for it to be > > > > backported. > > > I'll submit it to stable@ (it wasn't taken because > > > the patch which included the fix wasn't mainline yet and I > > > forgot to submit it for 2.6.37-rcX). > > > > > I can take care of that, but it would be great if someone could look > > > at the issue that perf timechart shows: "no trace data in the file" in > > > x86/tip which seems introduced by one of Arnaldo's latest commits. > > > Reverting some of his latest patches, solved it for me. > > > > Looking at it now. > > Can you try with this patch applied? We need a better way of specifying > ordering of __exit and __init routines :-\ I tested on x86/tip and it is fixed. I explicitly reverted your fix and run into it again. Thanks! Thomas