From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751891AbaK0Opr (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:45:47 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55036 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751860AbaK0Opp (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:45:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:45:28 -0200 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Corey Ashford , David Ahern , Frederic Weisbecker , Matt Fleming , Namhyung Kim , Paul Mackerras , Peter Zijlstra , Stephane Eranian Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Do not fail on processing out of order event Message-ID: <20141127144528.GL3808@redhat.com> References: <1417016371-30249-1-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org> <20141126154459.GD3808@redhat.com> <20141127105603.GA1987@gmail.com> <20141127135259.GI3808@redhat.com> <20141127140707.GB25752@krava.brq.redhat.com> <20141127141626.GK3808@redhat.com> <20141127142321.GC25752@krava.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141127142321.GC25752@krava.brq.redhat.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:23:21PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:16:26PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:07:07PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:53:00AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > > > > Arnaldo, I suppose the fix will go upstream via your tree, as a > > > > > pull request for v3.18 fixes? > > > > > > Right, I can do that. > > > > > > And I agree with the "expected" for events that are out of the current > > > > reordering window, i.e. we can't insert something into previous windows, > > > > so those are, humm, what would be a good name: > > > > stats->out_of_reordering_window, while stats->reordered, would be for > > > > events that were found out of order, but were successfully sorted as > > > > part of a flush operation, right? > > > > > the forced flush is when we find out we crossed the allowed allocation > > > space for the samples queue.. so we take the half of the sorted queue > > > and flush it.. for this case we break the flushing logic and we might > > > > Well, we make it more likely than without a forced flush to find out of > > order events, because the window suddenly became smaller, its like we > > found a FLUSH event right there, no? > yep, still I dont see the need to count those 2 cases separately, > both these types (of out of order event) have same implications > for the report Ok, I misundertood it when thinking it was about reordered events inside a flush window versus events for a previous, closed flush window. Yeah, if we detect events for a previous flush window in a forced flush or in a normal flush, its all the same: events we can't consider anymore because they are for a closed (old) flush window. - Arnaldo > jirka > > > > > > (probably just in theory) get out of order events > > > > > but IMO both cases of out of order event are equal.. we dont do > > > anything special for forced flushed AFAIK > > > > - Arnaldo