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]

Message-ID: <20171002142132.GB24613@krava>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:21:32 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.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 Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:09PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

well, would be nice to have single call for this.. but not big deal for me ;-)

jirka