[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <573AC972.1080104@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:34:10 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
wangnan0@...wei.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
tumanova@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
penberg@...nel.org, dsahern@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7 UPDATE] perf tools: Find vdso with the consider of
cross-platform
On 16/05/16 16:32, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:51:49AM +0000, He Kuang escreveu:
>> There's a problem in machine__findnew_vdso(), vdso buildid generated
>> by a 32-bit machine stores it with the name 'vdso', but when
>> processing buildid on a 64-bit machine with the same 'perf.data', perf
>> will search for vdso named as 'vdso32' and get failed.
>>
>> This patch tries to find the exsiting dsos in machine->dsos by thread
>> dso_type. 64-bit thread tries to find vdso with name 'vdso', because
>> all 64-bit vdso is named as that. 32-bit thread first tries to find
>> vdso with name 'vdso32' if this thread was run on 64-bit machine, if
>> failed, then it tries 'vdso' which indicates that the thread was run
>> on 32-bit machine when recording.
>
> Adrian, are you ok now?
I sent a couple more comments.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists