linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf report --pid not reporting correctly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:36:17 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf report --pid not reporting correctly

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:34:57AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:

SNIP

>   $ perf report -s pid,cpu --stdio --hierarchy
>   #
>   #    Overhead  Pid:Command / CPU
>   # ...........  .......................
>   #
>       31.21%     0:swapper        
>          12.16%     000
>           3.09%     001
>           2.76%     002
>           2.23%     003
>           1.65%     007
>           1.65%     008
>           1.52%     009
>           1.51%     006
>           1.46%     004
>           1.34%     005
>           0.94%     010
>           0.90%     011
>       19.15%     8618:getmail        
>          ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------8<-------------------------------
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/event.h b/tools/perf/util/event.h
> index 8d363d5e65a2..42b1bfd29ef8 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/event.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/event.h
> @@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ enum auxtrace_error_type {
>   */
>  struct events_stats {
>  	u64 total_period;
> +	u64 total_early_filtered_period;

looks good, but why the word early? wouldn't total_filtered_period be just fine?

thanks,
jirka

>  	u64 total_non_filtered_period;
>  	u64 total_lost;
>  	u64 total_lost_samples;
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
> index 37a08f20730a..c7045411cce2 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
> @@ -1017,12 +1017,21 @@ int hist_entry_iter__add(struct hist_entry_iter *iter, struct addr_location *al,
>  			 int max_stack_depth, void *arg)
>  {
>  	int err, err2;
> +	struct hists *hists = evsel__hists(iter->evsel);
>  
>  	err = sample__resolve_callchain(iter->sample, &callchain_cursor, &iter->parent,
>  					iter->evsel, al, max_stack_depth);
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
>  
> +	if (symbol__parent_filter(iter->parent))
> +		al->filtered |= symbol__parent_filter(iter->parent);
> +
> +	if (al->filtered) {
> +		hists->stats.total_early_filtered_period += iter->sample->period;

SNIP