On 12/24/14 12:15 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
@@ -61,12 +61,12 @@ static int unwind_entry(struct unwind_entry *entry, void
*arg)
__attribute__ ((noinline))
static int unwind_thread(struct thread *thread)
{
- struct perf_sample sample;
+ struct perf_sample sample = {
+ .time = -1ULL,
+ };
1-liner like the others?
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
index 582e011adc92..2cc088d71922 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
@@ -431,6 +431,103 @@ struct thread *machine__find_thread(struct machine
*machine, pid_t pid,
return __machine__findnew_thread(machine, pid, tid, false);
}
+static void machine__remove_thread(struct machine *machine, struct thread *th);
Why is this declaration needed?
+
+static struct thread *__machine__findnew_thread_time(struct machine *machine,
+ pid_t pid, pid_t tid,
+ u64 timestamp, bool create)
+{
+ struct thread *curr, *pos, *new;
+ struct thread *th = NULL;
+ struct rb_node **p;
+ struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
+ bool initial = timestamp == (u64)0;
+
+ curr = __machine__findnew_thread(machine, pid, tid, initial);
What if create arg is false? Should initial arg also be false?
+ if (curr && timestamp >= curr->start_time)
+ return curr;
+
+ p = &machine->dead_threads.rb_node;
+ while (*p != NULL) {
+ parent = *p;
+ th = rb_entry(parent, struct thread, rb_node);
+
+ if (th->tid == tid) {
+ list_for_each_entry(pos, &th->node, node) {
+ if (timestamp >= pos->start_time &&
+ pos->start_time > th->start_time) {
+ th = pos;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (timestamp >= th->start_time) {
+ machine__update_thread_pid(machine, th, pid);
+ return th;
+ }
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (tid < th->tid)
+ p = &(*p)->rb_left;
+ else
+ p = &(*p)->rb_right;
+ }
Can the dead_threads search be put in a separate function --
machine__find_dead_thread?
+
+ if (!create)
+ return NULL;
+
+ if (!curr)
+ return __machine__findnew_thread(machine, pid, tid, true);
+
+ new = thread__new(pid, tid);
+ if (new == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+
+ new->start_time = timestamp;
+
+ if (*p) {
+ list_for_each_entry(pos, &th->node, node) {
+ /* sort by time */
+ if (timestamp >= pos->start_time) {
+ th = pos;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ list_add_tail(&new->node, &th->node);
+ } else {
+ rb_link_node(&new->rb_node, parent, p);
+ rb_insert_color(&new->rb_node, &machine->dead_threads);
+ }
Why insert this unknown tid on the dead_threads list?
+
+ /*
+ * We have to initialize map_groups separately
+ * after rb tree is updated.
+ *
+ * The reason is that we call machine__findnew_thread
+ * within thread__init_map_groups to find the thread
+ * leader and that would screwed the rb tree.
+ */
+ if (thread__init_map_groups(new, machine)) {
+ thread__delete(new);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ return new;
+}
---8<---
@@ -1265,6 +1362,16 @@ static void machine__remove_thread(struct machine
*machine, struct thread *th)
pos = rb_entry(parent, struct thread, rb_node);
if (pos->tid == th->tid) {
+ struct thread *old;
+
+ /* sort by time */
+ list_for_each_entry(old, &pos->node, node) {
+ if (th->start_time >= old->start_time) {
+ pos = old;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
this change seems unrelated to the patch subject --
machine__find*_thread_time.
David
--
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/
