On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 03:02:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 07:37:30PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > hum, so this is assuming that having cycles fort 1st entry > > > means there'll be for the rest? > > > Also in that case why is there the '!= cycles' check within > > > addr_map_symbol__account_cycles ? > > > > > It means there might be. It's just a short cut. But rarely > > branches may still have 0 cycles, so it still needs to be > > checked later. > > > > In theory it could miss a valid one if the first happened > > to be zero, but that seems very unlikely. > > so having 'bs->entries[0].flags.cycles' is the only way > of knowing that we have the feature enabled?
Yes. In theory we could add caps in sysfs like the PT code, but that's not implemented currently. -Andi -- [email protected] -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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/
