[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091006222924.GA11007@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:29:26 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: Start the perf.data mapping at data
offset in perf trace
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:21:26PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Currently, we are mapping perf.data in the beginning of the file
> and use the data offset as a buffer offset. This may exceed the
> mapping area if the data offset is upper than page_size * mmap_window
> and result in a page fault (thing that happen if we merge trace.info
> in perf.data).
>
> Instead, let's start the mapping in the page that matches our data
> offset.
>
> v2: Drop a junk from another patch (trace_report() removal)
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
> Cc: Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
I just tested the trace.info drop with perf sched, and we have the same bug
with mmap.
I guess we should rather have a common helper to use mmap on perf.data
and rely on a callback to process the events.
I'm putting this in my TODO list.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists