[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160616163343.GB13337@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:33:43 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
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 UPDATE2] perf tools: Find vdso with the consider
of cross-platform
Em Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:00:12PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
> On 15/06/16 16:34, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:04:54AM +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.
> >
> > Without looking at the code, just trying to understand your patch by
> > reading your description: Why would we look for names if we have
> > build-ids? All this type and name comparasions seems wrong if we have a
> > build-id, no?
> >
> > Adrian?
>
> We match maps to builds ids using the file name - consider
> machine__findnew_[v]dso() called in map__new(). So in the context of a perf
> data file, we consider the file name to be unique.
>
> A vdso map does not have a file name - all we know is that it is vdso. We
> look at the thread to tell if it is 32-bit, 64-bit or x32. Then we need to
> get the build id which has been recorded using short name "[vdso]" or
> "[vdso32]" or "[vdsox32]".
>
> The problem is that on a 32-bit machine, we use the name "[vdso]". If you
> take a 32-bit perf data file to a 64-bit machine, it gets hard to figure out
> if "[vdso]" is 32-bit or 64-bit.
>
> This patch solves that problem.
>
> I acked it in another email.
Ok, somehow this got lost, I thought to have applied it already, but
re-reading the changeset comment, I got confused, thanks for providing
this explanation, that I will stick to the changeset log for this
message, to help understanding this when scratching our heads in the
future.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists