[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b42909a-5c3a-42b4-a67f-5c10f97b9e0d@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 08:57:36 +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 3/4] perf util: Flexible to set block info output
formats
On 1/13/2020 6:10 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 07:03:53AM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> int report__browse_block_hists(struct block_hist *bh, float min_percent,
>> struct evsel *evsel, struct perf_env *env,
>> - struct annotation_options *annotation_opts)
>> + struct annotation_options *annotation_opts,
>> + bool release)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> @@ -451,13 +477,17 @@ int report__browse_block_hists(struct block_hist *bh, float min_percent,
>> symbol_conf.report_individual_block = true;
>> hists__fprintf(&bh->block_hists, true, 0, 0, min_percent,
>> stdout, true);
>> - hists__delete_entries(&bh->block_hists);
>> + if (release)
>> + hists__delete_entries(&bh->block_hists);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> case 1:
>> symbol_conf.report_individual_block = true;
>> ret = block_hists_tui_browse(bh, evsel, min_percent,
>> env, annotation_opts);
>> - hists__delete_entries(&bh->block_hists);
>> + if (release)
>> + hists__delete_entries(&bh->block_hists);
>> +
>> return ret;
>> default:
>> return -1;
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/block-info.h b/tools/perf/util/block-info.h
>> index bfa22c59195d..0bf01e3a423d 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/block-info.h
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/block-info.h
>> @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ enum {
>> struct block_report {
>> struct block_hist hist;
>> u64 cycles;
>> - struct block_fmt fmts[PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_MAX_INDEX];
>> + struct block_fmt *fmts;
>
> hum, couldn't you just keep the array and use it instead of allocating it?
> it will never be bigger than PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_MAX_INDEX, no?
>
> we could get rid of that release code
>
Yes, that makes sense. I will keep the array.
Thanks
Jin Yao
>
> jirka
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists