lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 11/16] perf, core: Pass perf_sample_data to perf_callchain()
I think you're going to have to stop using outlook or whatnot, this is
horrible.

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:00:00AM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@infradead.org]

> > So I don't like this. Why not use the regular PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
> > output to generate the stuff from? We already have two different means,
> > with different transport, for callchains anyhow, so a third really won't matter.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by using the regular
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK output to generate the stuff from. But we
> don't need to modify various architectures' perf_callchain_user, if
> that's your concern. An alternative way is to generate the callchain
> output in a higher level, like perf_callchain. If there is no frame
> pointer, the entry->nr will be set to MAX+1. So the perf_callchain
> knows that we need to try LBR callstack if possible. In
> perf_callchain, it resets entry->nr to old value, and call
> perf_callchain_lbr_callstack to check and fill the callchain struct if
> possible. The patch is as below.

Please instruct your MUA to wrap at 78 chars.

What I meant was: why can't we use the regular PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
output to generate user traces from?

PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK is the 'normal' LBR output format. Clobbering
the callstack output is bad.

> What do you think?

I think it still sucks.. you're still clobbering potentially more useful
data.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-07 18:01    [W:0.199 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site