On 06/23/2011 06:43 PM, Arun Sharma wrote: > On 6/23/11 5:11 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >> >> I'm confused, you first said it happens with new tools on older kernel. >> >> Can you tell us which combination of kernel/user raises the error? and >> which error. >>
I tried to repeat your examples below using perf-core tip (3.0-rc3, af07ce3e77). > > perf-3.0 + 2.6.38 > > perf record -agR gives: > > Can't find id 9's machine > Found 1 unknown events! This does not reproduce on 2.6.38.8-32.fc15.x86_64 running bare metal or 2.6.38 in a VM. If you are running bare metal try -e cpu-clock and see if it is cycles related. I doubt it, but that should be the only difference in the tests. That said, I did see that message while working on the gettimeofday patches a few weeks ago. I believe the root cause was the early mixture of cycles and tracepoints -- something I fixed before sending out the patches (sample_type hack as well as how the time-of-day trace events were added to the event list). > > perf-3.0 + 2.6.32 > > perf record -ag > perf script > > samples have bogus timestamps I'm surprised by this one. I tried with an older Fedora 12 VM (2.6.32.21 kernel). I don't get timestamps with perf-script and perf-report -D shows -1 which is what I expect given that SAMPLE_TIME attribute is not set by default. One difference here is that VM's default to cpu-clock for the event. > > perf-3.0 + 2.6.32 > > perf record -agR > perf script > > error: Samples do not contain timestamps And this one did not work out so well with the F-12 VM. It caused a kernel panic - top line on console is perf_swevent_hrtimer (lines scrolled off the top). > > perf-3.0 + any kernel > > perf record -agT > perf script > > is happy everywhere. Thanks! Which is what I would expect. Glad to see my version of reality apply elsewhere. ;-) David > > -Arun > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
