On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:17:25 +0900 Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> 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
