On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:53:20PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> From: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>
>
> The flat callchain mode is to print all chains in a single, simple
> hierarchy so make it easy to see.
>
> Currently perf report --tui doesn't show flat callchains properly. With
> flat callchains, only leaf nodes are added to the final rbtree so it
> should show entries in parent nodes. To do that, add parent_val list to
> struct callchain_node and show them along with the (normal) val list.
>
> For example, consider following callchains with '-g graph'.
>
> $ perf report -g graph
> - 39.93% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idle
> intel_idle
> cpuidle_enter_state
> cpuidle_enter
> call_cpuidle
> - cpu_startup_entry
> 28.63% start_secondary
> - 11.30% rest_init
> start_kernel
> x86_64_start_reservations
> x86_64_start_kernel
>
> Before:
> $ perf report -g flat
> - 39.93% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idle
> 28.63% start_secondary
> - 11.30% rest_init
> start_kernel
> x86_64_start_reservations
> x86_64_start_kernel
>
> After:
> $ perf report -g flat
> - 39.93% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idle
> - 28.63% intel_idle
> cpuidle_enter_state
> cpuidle_enter
> call_cpuidle
> cpu_startup_entry
> start_secondary
> - 11.30% intel_idle
> cpuidle_enter_state
> cpuidle_enter
> call_cpuidle
> cpu_startup_entry
> start_kernel
> x86_64_start_reservations
> x86_64_start_kernel
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>
> Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gr...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Kan Liang <kan.li...@intel.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl>
> Link:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1447047946-1691-8-git-send-email-namhy...@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@redhat.com>
> ---
[...]
> +int callchain_node__make_parent_list(struct callchain_node *node)
> +{
> + struct callchain_node *parent = node->parent;
> + struct callchain_list *chain, *new;
> + LIST_HEAD(head);
> +
> + while (parent) {
> + list_for_each_entry_reverse(chain, &parent->val, list) {
> + new = malloc(sizeof(*new));
> + if (new == NULL)
> + goto out;
> + *new = *chain;
> + new->has_children = false;
> + list_add_tail(&new->list, &head);
> + }
> + parent = parent->parent;
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(chain, new, &head, list)
> + list_move_tail(&chain->list, &node->parent_val);
> +
> + if (!list_empty(&node->parent_val)) {
> + chain = list_first_entry(&node->parent_val, struct
> callchain_list, list);
> + chain->has_children = rb_prev(&node->rb_node) ||
> rb_next(&node->rb_node);
> +
> + chain = list_first_entry(&node->val, struct callchain_list,
> list);
> + chain->has_children = false;
I'm a bit puzzled with this, can't we rewind through the parents on printing or
adding
to the flat rbtree instead of having this parent_val field?
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
