linux-kernel - [PATCH] perf top: Fix wrong hottest instruction highlighted

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:05:22 +0800
From:   He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
To:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <acme@...nel.org>,
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <hekuang@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] perf top: Fix wrong hottest instruction highlighted

Annotation line's percentage is compared and inserted into rbtree, but the
percent field of 'struct annotation_data' is an array, the comparison
result between them is the address difference.

This patch compares the right slot of percent array according to
opts->percent_type and makes things right.

The problem can be reproduced by pressing 'H' in perf top annotation view.
It should highlight the instruction line which has the highest sampling
percentage.

Signed-off-by: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
---
 tools/perf/ui/browsers/annotate.c | 16 ++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/ui/browsers/annotate.c b/tools/perf/ui/browsers/annotate.c
index 1d00e5ec7906..82e16bf84466 100644
--- a/tools/perf/ui/browsers/annotate.c
+++ b/tools/perf/ui/browsers/annotate.c
@@ -224,20 +224,24 @@ static unsigned int annotate_browser__refresh(struct ui_browser *browser)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int disasm__cmp(struct annotation_line *a, struct annotation_line *b)
+static double disasm__cmp(struct annotation_line *a, struct annotation_line *b,
+						  int percent_type)
 {
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < a->data_nr; i++) {
-		if (a->data[i].percent == b->data[i].percent)
+		if (a->data[i].percent[percent_type] == b->data[i].percent[percent_type])
 			continue;
-		return a->data[i].percent < b->data[i].percent;
+		return a->data[i].percent[percent_type] -
+			   b->data[i].percent[percent_type];
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void disasm_rb_tree__insert(struct rb_root *root, struct annotation_line *al)
+static void disasm_rb_tree__insert(struct annotate_browser *browser,
+				struct annotation_line *al)
 {
+	struct rb_root *root = &browser->entries;
 	struct rb_node **p = &root->rb_node;
 	struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
 	struct annotation_line *l;
@@ -246,7 +250,7 @@ static void disasm_rb_tree__insert(struct rb_root *root, struct annotation_line
 		parent = *p;
 		l = rb_entry(parent, struct annotation_line, rb_node);
 
-		if (disasm__cmp(al, l))
+		if (disasm__cmp(al, l, browser->opts->percent_type) < 0)
 			p = &(*p)->rb_left;
 		else
 			p = &(*p)->rb_right;
@@ -329,7 +333,7 @@ static void annotate_browser__calc_percent(struct annotate_browser *browser,
 			RB_CLEAR_NODE(&pos->al.rb_node);
 			continue;
 		}
-		disasm_rb_tree__insert(&browser->entries, &pos->al);
+		disasm_rb_tree__insert(browser, &pos->al);
 	}
 	pthread_mutex_unlock(&notes->lock);
 
-- 
2.20.1