>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:24:32PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 05:25:37AM -0400, kan.li...@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Kan Liang <kan.li...@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > evsel may have different cpus and threads as evlist's.
> > > > Use it's own cpus and threads, when open evsel in perf record.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.li...@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/perf/builtin-record.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > > > b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c index 25cf6b4..a0178bf 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > > > @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ static int record__open(struct record *rec)
> > > >
> > > > evlist__for_each(evlist, pos) {
> > > > try_again:
> > > > - if (perf_evsel__open(pos, evlist->cpus,
> > > > evlist->threads) <
> > > 0) {
> > > > + if (perf_evsel__open(pos, pos->cpus, pos->threads) < 0)
> > > > {
> > > > if (perf_evsel__fallback(pos, errno, msg,
> > > sizeof(msg))) {
> > > > if (verbose)
> > > > ui__warning("%s\n", msg);
> > > > --
> > > > 1.8.3.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > dont we need then handle filters the same way?
> > > like in attached change? totally untested..
> >
> > Filters look only work for tracepoint event, which doesn't have cpu limit.
> > So evlist and evsel should always be same.
> > I think we don't need to change it.
>
> right.. at least please make a comment about that
>
OK. I will do that.
> >
> > >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > > index 7aa039bd379a..f5cdf678d504 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > > @@ -244,12 +244,9 @@ static void handle_initial_delay(void)
> > > struct perf_evsel *counter;
> > >
> > > if (initial_delay) {
> > > - const int ncpus = cpu_map__nr(evsel_list->cpus),
> > > - nthreads = thread_map__nr(evsel_list->threads);
> > > -
> > > usleep(initial_delay * 1000);
> > > evlist__for_each(evsel_list, counter)
> > > - perf_evsel__enable(counter, ncpus, nthreads);
> > > + perf_evsel__enable(counter);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Agree, we need to use evsel's cpu and threads here.
> > What about the code as below? It should be simpler.
> > + perf_evsel__enable(counter,
> cpu_map__nr(counter->cpus),
> > +thread_map__nr(counter->threads));
> >
>
> ok, maybe I'll submit that patch as a cleanup, it seems more sane to use
> evsel cpus and threads now that we always have it there
>
I guess I will send out the builtin-record change and comments as a patch.
So you can either merge the cleanup code to that patch, or send out the
cleanup patch separately.
Either is fine for me.
Thanks,
Kan
--
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/
