linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] perf script: support time percent and multiple time ranges

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:   Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:41:09 +0800
From:   "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] perf script: support time percent and multiple
 time ranges



On 10/2/2017 7:58 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:45:21PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
>> index 9092de0..7fd3063 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
>> @@ -1357,6 +1357,8 @@ static void print_sample_synth(struct perf_sample *sample,
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> +#define PTIME_RANGE_MAX	10
>> +
>>  struct perf_script {
>>  	struct perf_tool	tool;
>>  	struct perf_session	*session;
>> @@ -1370,6 +1372,8 @@ struct perf_script {
>>  	int			name_width;
>>  	const char              *time_str;
>>  	struct perf_time_interval ptime;
>> +	struct perf_time_interval ptime_range[PTIME_RANGE_MAX];
>> +	int			range_num;
>>  };
>>  
>>  static int perf_evlist__max_name_len(struct perf_evlist *evlist)
>> @@ -1565,8 +1569,11 @@ static int process_sample_event(struct perf_tool *tool,
>>  	struct perf_script *scr = container_of(tool, struct perf_script, tool);
>>  	struct addr_location al;
>>  
>> -	if (perf_time__skip_sample(&scr->ptime, sample->time))
>> +	if (perf_time__skip_sample(&scr->ptime, sample->time) ||
>> +	    perf_time__ranges_skip_sample(scr->ptime_range, scr->range_num,
>> +					  sample->time)) {
> 
> any reason for why dont use ptime_range[1] with range_num = 1
> and use just a single call here?
> 
> jirka
> 

Just want the code to be easy reading.

perf_time__range_skip_sample doesn't allow the invalid time range.

But perf_time__skip_sample allows the time range to be invalid (ptime->start or ptime->end can be 0). 

I don't want to mix them up because the code might be not clear.

Are 2 calls OK here? If you think a single call is better, I will change.

Thanks
Jin Yao