Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:27:34 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] perf-stat: introduce bpf_counter_ops->disable() |
| |
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 02:43:33PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
SNIP
> +static inline int bpf_counter__disable(struct evsel *evsel __maybe_unused) > +{ > + return 0; > +} > + > static inline int bpf_counter__read(struct evsel *evsel __maybe_unused) > { > return -EAGAIN; > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > index d29a8a118973c..e71041c890102 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > #include "evsel.h" > #include "debug.h" > #include "units.h" > +#include "bpf_counter.h" > #include <internal/lib.h> // page_size > #include "affinity.h" > #include "../perf.h" > @@ -421,6 +422,9 @@ static void __evlist__disable(struct evlist *evlist, char *evsel_name) > if (affinity__setup(&affinity) < 0) > return; > > + evlist__for_each_entry(evlist, pos) > + bpf_counter__disable(pos);
I was wondering why you don't check evsel__is_bpf like for the enable case.. and realized that we don't skip bpf evsels in __evlist__enable and __evlist__disable like we do in read_affinity_counters
so I guess there's extra affinity setup and bunch of wrong ioctls being called?
jirka
> + > /* Disable 'immediate' events last */ > for (imm = 0; imm <= 1; imm++) { > evlist__for_each_cpu(evlist, i, cpu) { > -- > 2.30.2 >
| |