[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2ba3aeb-269d-8137-f7b8-13a658bff400@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:25:27 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: perf record: regression with latest PT fix
On 18/12/17 15:28, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:03:53AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> The following patch:
>>
>> f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces
>
> Cc'ing Adrian in case he missed the patch.
Doesn't seem to have much to do with Intel PT, but the patch logic looks wrong:
ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret != -1)
return ret;
Shouldn't that be:
ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, ×tamp);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret && ret != -1)
return ret;
>
>> is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report
>> when running simple perf record commands:
>>
>> $ perf record -e cycles noploop
>>
>> Reverting the patch fixes the problem.
>>
>> Are you seeing this as well?
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists