On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 21:49:10 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu: > > On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Looks ok, having both implementations matching and the callchains making > > > sense for your workloads is a good way to verify the sanity, thanks. > > > > > > I wonder if we shouldn't somehow script this, i.e. build it with one > > > implementation, generate output from some test workload, build it with > > > the other, second output, diff it, report when not the same. > > > > That does sound like a good idea, but I'm unsure how to do it. Note that > > many "simple" tests work just fine. Only larger complicated workloads > > trigger this issue for me. > > > > One potential way to test it would be `perf archive` - i.e. I send you the > > binaries involved and then we can use perf script diffing to ensure it all > > works... > > Humm, I'm trying to cook up a: > > perf data filter --pid 12345 --perf-data-offset 1234567 --output > perf.data.subset > > to allow when finding some case like that to get a small subset of a > perf.data file with just the sample we want to get the backtrace from + > the mmaps, etc up to that point. > > With that I could keep a repo of interesting perf.data files to have in > my regression tests.
How do I find the data offset to use here? If that works, I can provide you with one test file. But note how we'd also need the referenced mmap files. So it's going to be perf.data + perf archive. Bye -- Milian Wolff | [email protected] | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts
