From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752015AbbKZP7E (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:59:04 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53370 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751060AbbKZP7B (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:59:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:58:57 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: David Ahern Cc: Namhyung Kim , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Kan Liang , Frederic Weisbecker , Andi Kleen , Wang Nan Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf callchain: Stop resolving callchains after invalid address Message-ID: <20151126155857.GB31756@krava.brq.redhat.com> References: <1448521700-32062-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> <1448521700-32062-2-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> <565705D1.705@gmail.com> <20151126150018.GA21474@danjae.kornet> <565729C1.4030802@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565729C1.4030802@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:48:17AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 11/26/15 8:00 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >Hi David, > > > >On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:14:57AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > >>On 11/26/15 12:08 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >>>@@ -528,11 +529,16 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv) > >>> { > >>> const char *cmd; > >>> char sbuf[STRERR_BUFSIZE]; > >>>+ int min_addr; > >>> > >>> /* The page_size is placed in util object. */ > >>> page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE); > >>> cacheline_size = sysconf(_SC_LEVEL1_DCACHE_LINESIZE); > >>> > >>>+ if (sysctl__read_int("vm/mmap_min_addr", &min_addr) < 0) > >> > >>This assumes the record and analysis are done on the same system. > > > >Right. Maybe we can just use minimal size (or page size?) or save and > >pass it through somewhere in the feature bit? > > no preference, but it should work with cross arch analysis as well (e.g., > record on arm/ppc and analysis on x86) I think we should store it in perf.data in features, but seems like a waste to spend one bit just for this number. I remember commenting on new CPU related FEATURE data, that would contain cpu specific data in extensible form like TAG,VALUE,TAG,VALUE.. but I think the design changed or something, because I cannot find it in now ;-) maybe we could add something like that jirka