> On Apr 19, 2021, at 7:26 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:13:24PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> +/*
>> + * Returns:
>> + * 0 if all events use BPF;
>> + * 1 if some events do NOT use BPF;
>> + * < 0 on errors;
>> + */
>> static int read_bpf_map_counters(void)
>> {
>> + bool has_none_bpf_events = false;
>> struct evsel *counter;
>> int err;
>>
>> evlist__for_each_entry(evsel_list, counter) {
>> + if (!evsel__is_bpf(counter)) {
>> + has_none_bpf_events = true;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> err = bpf_counter__read(counter);
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>> }
>> - return 0;
>> + return has_none_bpf_events ? 1 : 0;
>> }
>>
>> static void read_counters(struct timespec *rs)
>> @@ -442,9 +455,10 @@ static void read_counters(struct timespec *rs)
>> int err;
>>
>> if (!stat_config.stop_read_counter) {
>> - if (target__has_bpf(&target))
>> - err = read_bpf_map_counters();
>> - else
>> + err = read_bpf_map_counters();
>> + if (err < 0)
>> + return;
>> + if (err)
>> err = read_affinity_counters(rs);
>
> this part is confusing for me.. I understand we don't want to enter
> read_affinity_counters when there's no bpf counter, so we don't set
> affinities in vain.. but there must be better way ;-)
>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
>> index 5de991ab46af9..3189b63714371 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
>> @@ -792,6 +792,8 @@ int bpf_counter__load(struct evsel *evsel, struct target
>> *target)
>> evsel->bpf_counter_ops = &bpf_program_profiler_ops;
>> else if (target->use_bpf)
>> evsel->bpf_counter_ops = &bperf_ops;
>> + else if (evsel__match_bpf_counter_events(evsel->name))
>> + evsel->bpf_counter_ops = &bperf_ops;
>
> please put this with the target->use_bpf check,
> it seems like it's another thing
Thanks for the review. Fixing these in v4.
Song
