[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130509092441.GB21620@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 11:24:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: acme@...stprotocols.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: detect loops processing events
* David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> Recovery algorithm in __perf_session__process_events attempts to remap
> a perf.data file with a different file_offset and try again at a new head
> position. Both of these adjustment rely on page_offset. If page_offset is
> 0 then file_offset and head never change which means the remap attempt is
> the same and the fetch_mmaped_event is the same and the processing just
> loops forever.
>
> Detect this condition and warn the user.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/session.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> index cf1fe01..1c4dc45 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> @@ -1235,6 +1235,12 @@ more:
> }
>
> page_offset = page_size * (head / page_size);
> + /* catch looping where we never make forward progress. */
> + if (page_offset == 0) {
> + pr_err("Loop detection processing events. Is file corrupted?\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> file_offset += page_offset;
> head -= page_offset;
> goto remap;
Ah, nice!
Btw., would it make sense to emit a (once-only) warning and optimistically
fix page_offset up to 1 (or 4096) and let things continue with the next
set of data - can we recover most of the data in that case?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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