linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf lock: fix sorting by wait

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:08:03 +0900
From:	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
CC:	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: fix sorting by wait_min

On 2011年03月15日 04:23, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:54:58PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz escreveu:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:47:15PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
>>> if lock was uncontended, wait_time_min == ULLONG_MAX, so we need to handle
>>> this case differently to show high wait times first
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz<marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tools/perf/builtin-lock.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
>>>   1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c b/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c
>>> index 0305a40..812ad26 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c
>>> @@ -202,9 +202,20 @@ static struct thread_stat *thread_stat_findnew_first(u32 tid)
>>>   SINGLE_KEY(nr_acquired)
>>>   SINGLE_KEY(nr_contended)
>>>   SINGLE_KEY(wait_time_total)
>>> -SINGLE_KEY(wait_time_min)
>>>   SINGLE_KEY(wait_time_max)
>>>
>>> +static int lock_stat_key_wait_time_min(struct lock_stat *one,
>>> +					struct lock_stat *two)
>>> +{
>>> +	u64 s1 = one->wait_time_min;
>>> +	u64 s2 = two->wait_time_min;
>>> +	if (s1 == ULLONG_MAX)
>>> +		s1 = 0;
>>> +	if (s2 == ULLONG_MAX)
>>> +		s2 = 0;
>>> +	return s1>  s2;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   struct lock_key {
>>>   	/*
>>>   	 * name: the value for specify by user
>>> --
>>
>> Anything wrong with this patch?
>> I can't find it in linux-next.
>
> Hitoshi-san, can I have your acked-by for this one?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Arnaldo
>

Hi Arnaldo and Marcin,

Sure, ignoring the case of wait_time_min == ULLONG_MAX is my mistake.
Thanks a lot!

--
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/