[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110624001145.GE8058@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:11:48 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using a new perf tool against an older kernel
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:02:15PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>
>
> On 06/23/2011 01:39 PM, Arun Sharma wrote:
> > On 6/23/11 7:22 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> >
> >> I have not seen issues like this using newer perf userspace against
> >> older kernels. For example, my laptop was running Fedora 14 (2.6.35) and
> >> now Fedora 15 (2.6.38.8) and I typically use latest perf builds (e.g.,
> >> testing patches).
> >
> > I narrowed it down to PERF_SAMPLE_RAW:
> >
> > perf record -ag -- sleep 1
> >
> > is fine, but:
> >
> > perf record -agR -- sleep 1
> >
> > fails for me most of the time. The reason I needed to use the -R in the
> > first place is that "perf script" fails on older kernels with:
> >
> > Samples do not contain timestamps.
> >
> > With the newer perf, I don't get errors, but the timestamp field is
> > invalid. So I need to use the -R flag to get valid timestamps +
> > stacktraces out of "perf script".
>
> That should have been fixed.
>
> And -T on record gets the timestamps.
>
> David
Right, it would be nice to suggest that from perf script when timestamps
are not recorded.
--
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