* perf record: regression with latest PT fix
@ 2017-12-18 13:03 Stephane Eranian
[not found] ` <20171218132821.5gqxtwotgxvpqzy7@ukko.fi.intel.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephane Eranian @ 2017-12-18 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: LKML, Peter Zijlstra, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Andi Kleen,
Mathieu Poirier, Alexander Shishkin
Hi,
The following patch:
f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces
is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report
when running simple perf record commands:
$ perf record -e cycles noploop
Reverting the patch fixes the problem.
Are you seeing this as well?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: perf record: regression with latest PT fix
[not found] ` <20171218132821.5gqxtwotgxvpqzy7@ukko.fi.intel.com>
@ 2017-12-18 14:25 ` Adrian Hunter
2017-12-18 15:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Hunter @ 2017-12-18 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Shishkin, Stephane Eranian
Cc: Jiri Olsa, LKML, Peter Zijlstra, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo,
Andi Kleen, Mathieu Poirier
On 18/12/17 15:28, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:03:53AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> The following patch:
>>
>> f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces
>
> Cc'ing Adrian in case he missed the patch.
Doesn't seem to have much to do with Intel PT, but the patch logic looks wrong:
ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret != -1)
return ret;
Shouldn't that be:
ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret && ret != -1)
return ret;
>
>> is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report
>> when running simple perf record commands:
>>
>> $ perf record -e cycles noploop
>>
>> Reverting the patch fixes the problem.
>>
>> Are you seeing this as well?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: perf record: regression with latest PT fix
2017-12-18 14:25 ` Adrian Hunter
@ 2017-12-18 15:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
2017-12-18 16:44 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Poirier @ 2017-12-18 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Hunter
Cc: Alexander Shishkin, Stephane Eranian, Jiri Olsa, LKML,
Peter Zijlstra, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Andi Kleen
On 18 December 2017 at 07:25, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> On 18/12/17 15:28, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:03:53AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> The following patch:
>>>
>>> f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces
>>
>> Cc'ing Adrian in case he missed the patch.
>
> Doesn't seem to have much to do with Intel PT, but the patch logic looks wrong:
>
> ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret != -1)
> return ret;
>
> Shouldn't that be:
>
> ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret && ret != -1)
> return ret;
Of course!
Ingo, how do you want to proceed? Should I send a V3?
>
>
>>
>>> is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report
>>> when running simple perf record commands:
>>>
>>> $ perf record -e cycles noploop
>>>
>>> Reverting the patch fixes the problem.
>>>
>>> Are you seeing this as well?
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: perf record: regression with latest PT fix
2017-12-18 15:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
@ 2017-12-18 16:44 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2017-12-18 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mathieu Poirier
Cc: Adrian Hunter, Alexander Shishkin, Stephane Eranian, Jiri Olsa,
LKML, Peter Zijlstra, Andi Kleen, acme
Em Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:23:46AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> On 18 December 2017 at 07:25, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 18/12/17 15:28, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:03:53AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The following patch:
> >>>
> >>> f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces
> >>
> >> Cc'ing Adrian in case he missed the patch.
> >
> > Doesn't seem to have much to do with Intel PT, but the patch logic looks wrong:
> >
> > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret != -1)
> > return ret;
> >
> > Shouldn't that be:
> >
> > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret && ret != -1)
> > return ret;
>
> Of course!
>
> Ingo, how do you want to proceed? Should I send a V3?
Probably, I've run into this as well, as has Ingo, after I reverted it,
things got back working.
Back to vacations... :-)
- Arnaldo
> >>> is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report
> >>> when running simple perf record commands:
> >>>
> >>> $ perf record -e cycles noploop
> >>>
> >>> Reverting the patch fixes the problem.
> >>>
> >>> Are you seeing this as well?
> >>
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-12-18 16:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-12-18 13:03 perf record: regression with latest PT fix Stephane Eranian
[not found] ` <20171218132821.5gqxtwotgxvpqzy7@ukko.fi.intel.com>
2017-12-18 14:25 ` Adrian Hunter
2017-12-18 15:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
2017-12-18 16:44 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome