On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:26:31AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: SNIP
> >
> > hum, where is it callee/caller mixed? with following example:
> >
> > ---
> > void c(void)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > void b(void)
> > {
> > c();
> > }
> >
> > void a(void)
> > {
> > b();
> > }
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > while(1) {
> > a();
> > b();
> > c();
> > }
> > }
> > ---
> >
> > for 'c' the current code will display:
> >
> > - 43.74% 43.74% t t [.] c
> > ▒
> > - __libc_start_main
> > ▒
> > - 86.33% main
> > ▒
> > 67.08% c
> > ▒
> > - 32.91% a
> > ▒
> > 99.44% c
> > ▒
> > - 0.56% b
> > ▒
> > c
> > ▒
> > 13.67% c
> > ▒
> >
> > and with this patch:
> >
> > - 43.74% 43.74% t t [.] c
> > ▒
> > c
> > ▒
> >
> >
> > The 'c' callchain is still in caller order. IMO we should
> > keep whole callchain here.
>
> The problem is not in pure self entry (that has self overhead = children
> overhead) and pure cumulative entry (self overhead = 0). It's in mixed
> entries, please see last two examples in the description 0/3.
right, but it still affects pure entries as well
anyway, let's see the mixed entry
for 'a' the current code will display:
- 31.97% 17.16% t t [.] a
▒
- __libc_start_main
◆
81.08% a
▒
- 18.92% main
▒
a
▒
- a
▒
85.05% c
▒
- 14.91% b
▒
100.00% c
▒
and with this patch:
- 31.97% 17.16% t t [.] a
▒
- a
▒
85.05% c
▒
- 14.91% b
▒
100.00% c
▒
so we'll miss the 'self' callchain of 'a' symbol
if we want to avoid the confusion about 2 different callchains, how
about marking them with 'self' and 'children' tags, instead of removing
one of them, like:
for 'a' the current code will display:
- 31.97% 17.16% t t [.] a
▒
- [self]
__libc_start_main
◆
81.08% a
▒
- 18.92% main
▒
a
▒
- [children]
a
▒
85.05% c
▒
- 14.91% b
▒
100.00% c
▒
jirka
--
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/
