From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933146AbcGLMcR (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:32:17 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0107.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.107]:56923 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750760AbcGLMcQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:32:16 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:4362:5007:6119:6261:7875:7903:10004:10400:10450:10455:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12114:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:13439:14096:14097:14181:14659:14721:19904:19999:21080:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:4,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: tax07_6ad68b82ee826 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2058 Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:32:12 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Namhyung Kim Cc: LKML , Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] trace-cmd: Use tracecmd_peek_next_data() in fgraph_ent_handler Message-ID: <20160712083212.04b9622e@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20160712001725.GA18134@danjae.aot.lge.com> References: <20160708055612.32221-1-namhyung@gmail.com> <20160708055612.32221-2-namhyung@gmail.com> <20160711125522.794dfccb@gandalf.local.home> <20160712001725.GA18134@danjae.aot.lge.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:17:25 +0900 Namhyung Kim wrote: > > Hmm, but what happens if the next data is just some random event on > > another CPU. Do we want to break it up just because there's data on > > another cpu? > > Yes, I think we should break. Isn't it natural to show an event in > the middle of a function if it occurred before returning from the > function? It would be more acccurate output IMHO. I guess most leaf > functions are small so the end result would almost same. OK, that sounds fine then. > > > > > > I wonder if we should grab a record from the same cpu and if it isn't > > the return, then try another cpu? > > But in this case, it's a problem even if it's the return of the same > function. The task can be migrated to another cpu during the > function, and then can be migrated back to the original cpu while > calling same function again. The entry of the first invocation would > match to the exit of the Nth invocation.. I'll keep your patch as is then. Thanks, -- Steve