[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53CFE6F3.4010605@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:46:43 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/41] perf tools: Identify which comms are from exec
On 23/07/2014 5:09 p.m., Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:07:52AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:43:08PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
>>>>> @@ -106,6 +107,8 @@ int comm__override(struct comm *comm, const char *str, u64 timestamp)
>>>>> comm_str__put(old);
>>>>> comm->comm_str = new;
>>>>> comm->start = timestamp;
>>>>> + if (exec && !comm->exec)
>>>>> + comm->exec = true;
>>
>>>> Why do you need the !comm->exec test?
>>
>>> Dunno
>>
>> I saw that you kept it in the last patchkit submitted, I'll just drop
>> it, needless obfuscation.
Sorry I forgot.
>
> Also why do you need to "identify which comms are from exec", was it
> good for?
It is for grouping together all the data from a single execution, which
is needed for pairing calls and returns e.g. any outstanding calls when
a process exec's will never return.
--
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