[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150908133302.GE2038@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:33:02 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: pi3orama <pi3orama@....com>
Cc: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
"kan.liang@...el.com" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix invalid memory accessing
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:16:31PM +0800, pi3orama wrote:
SNIP
> >> Now I understand your suggestion. You mean we can build env->cpu before
> >> processing the first sample, then init al.socket using that map instead
> >
> > hum, that should be the case anyway.. features are read before events
> >
> >> of calling cpu_map__get_socket_id() unconditionally in an ad-hoc way.
> >>
> >> And I have another question that, since build_cpu_topo() and
> >> perf_event__preprocess_sample() are more or less doing similar things,
> >> why we need both of them?
> >
> > perf_event__preprocess_sample is called for each sample,
> > while build_cpu_topo is part of storing topology feature
> Sorry, what I wanted to say should be:
> cpu_map__get_socket_id() and build_cpu_topo()...
cpu_map__get_socket_id is also used by perf stat
jirka
--
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