Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > > - pr_oe_time(timestamp, "out of order event");
> > > > + pr_oe_time(timestamp, "out of order event\n");
> > > > pr_oe_time(oe->last_flush, "last flush, last_flush_type
> > > > %d\n",
> > > > oe->last_flush_type);
> > > >
> > > > - /* We could get out of order messages after forced
> > > > flush. */
> > > > - if (oe->last_flush_type != OE_FLUSH__HALF)
> > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > + s->stats.nr_unordered_events++;
> >
> > Btw., in the forced flush case we'll get out of order events that
> > are 'expected'. Shouldn't we count them separately and not warn
> > about them, or so?
>
> hum, we warned about them anyway, we just did not fail processing..
> and the impact of both cases should be the same.. it's just at the
> forced flush we expected/allowed out of order events
>
> so I think it's ok to share the same counter and warn about
> them the same way
Sure? See my other message, aren't those two kinds of reordering? I.e.
one that we can "fix" (aka reorder as part of a flush), one that we
can't?
> >
> > > > + if (session->stats.nr_unordered_events != 0) {
> > > > + ui__warning("%u out of order events recorded.\n",
> > > > + session->stats.nr_unordered_events);
> > > > + }
> >
> > Nit: I'd suggest keeping the message printout on a single line:
> >
> > if (session->stats.nr_unordered_events != 0) {
> > ui__warning("%u out of order events recorded.\n",
> > session->stats.nr_unordered_events);
> >
> > as IMHO the cure for this col80 linebreak checkpatch warning is
> > worse than the disease! :-)
>
> ok ;-)
>
> >
> > Barring those details:
> >
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> thanks,
> jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
