* 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[parent not found: <20171218132821.5gqxtwotgxvpqzy7@ukko.fi.intel.com>]
* 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