From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751872AbaBKSFk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:05:40 -0500
Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:58259 "EHLO
	cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751656AbaBKSFa (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:05:30 -0500
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:05:12 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Weng Meiling <wengmeiling.weng@huawei.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
        "oprofile-list@lists.sf.net" <oprofile-list@lists.sf.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        "wangnan0@huawei.com" <wangnan0@huawei.com>,
        "zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com>,
        Huang Qiang <h.huangqiang@huawei.com>,
        "sdu.liu@huawei.com" <sdu.liu@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oprofile: check whether oprofile perf enabled in
 op_overflow_handler()
Message-ID: <20140211180512.GO8693@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20140114150553.GC20315@rric.localhost>
 <52D5EC44.30101@huawei.com>
 <20140115102445.GE20315@rric.localhost>
 <52D73148.4090408@huawei.com>
 <52D7A750.50906@huawei.com>
 <20140116115245.GB8360@rric.localhost>
 <20140116193652.GD22105@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <52D8A56F.1010507@huawei.com>
 <52F9A82F.3060806@huawei.com>
 <20140211155207.GK8693@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140211155207.GK8693@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:52:07PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:33:51AM +0000, Weng Meiling wrote:
> > Is there any progress on this work? Because this is important for me.
> > Sorry for trouble you.
> 
> Oops, I totally forgot about this. Does the below patch work for you?

[...]

> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 56003c6edfd3..6fcc293d77a4 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ void perf_sample_event_took(u64 sample_len_ns)
>         u64 local_samples_len;
>         u64 allowed_ns = ACCESS_ONCE(perf_sample_allowed_ns);
>  
> +       pr_info("perf_sample_event_took(%llu ns)\n", sample_len_ns);
> +
>         if (allowed_ns == 0)
>                 return;

Ignore this hunk, it was there as a debugging aid. Testing the other half of
the patch would be useful though!

Will