From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EC7C43381 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB4820C01 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730271AbfB0NKu (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:10:50 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34914 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729740AbfB0NKt (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:10:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7062E2DC358; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krava (unknown [10.43.17.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6184E1001DED; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:10:45 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: "Jin, Yao" Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] perf diff: Support --time filter option Message-ID: <20190227131045.GB18893@krava> References: <1551183069-5931-1-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <1551183069-5931-2-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20190227092812.GB22793@krava> <2eecb3cf-1dcc-f98f-1ca5-f9c29bd8fd8f@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2eecb3cf-1dcc-f98f-1ca5-f9c29bd8fd8f@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:51:44PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: > > > On 2/27/2019 5:28 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:11:07PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > + .ordered_events = true, > > > + .ordering_requires_timestamps = true, > > > + }, > > > }; > > > static struct perf_evsel *evsel_match(struct perf_evsel *evsel, > > > @@ -771,19 +788,136 @@ static void data__free(struct data__file *d) > > > } > > > } > > > +static int parse_time_range(struct data__file *d, > > > + struct perf_time_interval *ptime_range, > > > + const char *time_str) > > > +{ > > > + if (perf_time__parse_str(ptime_range, > > > + time_str) != 0) { > > > + if (d->session->evlist->first_sample_time == 0 && > > > + d->session->evlist->last_sample_time == 0) { > > > + pr_err("HINT: no first/last sample time found in perf data.\n" > > > + "Please use latest perf binary to execute 'perf record'\n" > > > + "(if '--buildid-all' is enabled, please set '--timestamp-boundary').\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + pdiff.range_num = perf_time__percent_parse_str( > > > + ptime_range, pdiff.range_size, time_str, > > > + d->session->evlist->first_sample_time, > > > + d->session->evlist->last_sample_time); > > > + > > > + if (pdiff.range_num < 0) { > > > + pr_err("Invalid time string\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + } else { > > > + pdiff.range_num = 1; > > > > I dont understand why we set range_num to 1 if there's > > not time option set.. it should be 0 and we should take > > no action in diff__process_sample_event, right? > > > > then I checked the report code and we do the same, > > could we fix that? I'm assuming we don't need any > > time check if the time option is not set.. please > > correct me if I miss something > > > > jirka > > > > We support multiple complicated time strings. :( > > In parse_time_range(), perf_time__parse_str() returns 0 if the time string > is a simple start/stop format. So next, we set the range_num to 1. If the > time string contains multiple time percent ranges (e.g. "10%/1,10%/2,..."), > perf_time__parse_str() will return with error (<0), then we will continue > checking with perf_time__percent_parse_str(). > > So when range_num is set to 1, it just means it's the simple time string. why do we need to have time range set if there's no --time option set by user? jirka