[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091015122839.GA4960@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:28:48 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perf report fractal output issue
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:57:26AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed a problem where I wasn't always getting callchains:
>
> # perf report
> 98.47% lock1_processes [kernel] [k] .lock_kernel
>
> 0.91% lock1_processes [kernel] [k] .fput
>
>
> But a flat output confirmed the data is there:
>
> # perf report -g flat
> 98.47% lock1_processes [kernel] [k] .lock_kernel
> 98.47%
> .lock_kernel
> .__posix_lock_file
> (nil)
> .fcntl_setlk
> .sys_fcntl
> syscall_exit
> 0xfffb7d04844
> .testcase
> .testcase
> .affinitize
> .new_task
> .main
> 0xfffb7c4933c
> 0xfffb7c4955c
> (nil)
>
> It looks like callchain__fprintf_graph() only prints the callchain if we
> have at least one rb entry at the top. In my case all the associated
> backtraces are identical so I assume we dont have to do any splitting.
>
> Anton
Hmm, could you please send me a perf.data where you can see that?
Does that only happen on powerpc?
Thanks.
--
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