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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:41:00 -0800 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, jolsa@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/13] perf evsel: Support opening on a specific CPU On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:30:33PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:16:42AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> > > SNIP > > > int perf_evsel__open_per_thread(struct evsel *evsel, > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.h b/tools/perf/util/evsel.h > > index b10d5ba21966..54513d70c109 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.h > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.h > > @@ -223,7 +223,8 @@ int evsel__enable(struct evsel *evsel); > > int evsel__disable(struct evsel *evsel); > > > > int perf_evsel__open_per_cpu(struct evsel *evsel, > > - struct perf_cpu_map *cpus); > > + struct perf_cpu_map *cpus, > > + int cpu); > > int perf_evsel__open_per_thread(struct evsel *evsel, > > struct perf_thread_map *threads); > > int evsel__open(struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_cpu_map *cpus, > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/stat.c b/tools/perf/util/stat.c > > index 6822e4ffe224..36dc95032e4c 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/stat.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/stat.c > > @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ int create_perf_stat_counter(struct evsel *evsel, > > } > > > > if (target__has_cpu(target) && !target__has_per_thread(target)) > > - return perf_evsel__open_per_cpu(evsel, evsel__cpus(evsel)); > > + return perf_evsel__open_per_cpu(evsel, evsel__cpus(evsel), -1); > > how will -1 owrk in here? it will end up as: > > perf_evsel__open_per_cpu > evsel__open_cpu( ...., start_cpu = -1, end_cpu = -1 + 1) > for (cpu = start_cpu; cpu < end_cpu; cpu++) { Yes you're right. The problem was the splitting of the patches. With the two patches combined it works. So the end result is good, just a bad intermediate step. I will merge them again. It seems better than creating something complicated here that will just be undone next patch again. -Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists