* 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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.