[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160530085227.GA25607@krava>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 10:52:27 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, wangnan0@...wei.com,
jpoimboe@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
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 v6 04/11] perf tools: Move unwind__prepare_access from
thread_new into thread__insert_map
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 11:59:53AM +0000, He Kuang wrote:
> For determine the libunwind methods to use, we should get the
> 32bit/64bit information from maps of a thread. When a thread is newly
> created, the information is not prepared. This patch moves
> unwind__prepare_access() into thread__insert_map() so we can get the
> information we need from maps.
>
> Signed-off-by: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/thread.c | 7 ++-----
> tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c | 7 +++----
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/thread.c b/tools/perf/util/thread.c
> index 6d3900c..045477d 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/thread.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/thread.c
> @@ -43,11 +43,6 @@ struct thread *thread__new(pid_t pid, pid_t tid)
> thread->cpu = -1;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&thread->comm_list);
>
> - register_local_unwind_libunwind_ops(thread);
> -
> - if (unwind__prepare_access(thread) < 0)
> - goto err_thread;
> -
> comm_str = malloc(32);
> if (!comm_str)
> goto err_thread;
> @@ -207,6 +202,8 @@ void thread__insert_map(struct thread *thread, struct map *map)
> {
> map_groups__fixup_overlappings(thread->mg, map, stderr);
> map_groups__insert(thread->mg, map);
> +
> + unwind__prepare_access(thread);
so thread__insert_map does not return value,
I think we should change it now when it calls
unwind__prepare_access
I was also thinking to keepcall unwind__prepare_access
separatelly but this function seems to fit better
thanks,
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists