linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf util: Flexible to set block info output formats

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:31:23 +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 v4 3/4] perf util: Flexible to set block info output
 formats



On 1/20/2020 11:00 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/20/2020 5:47 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 03:29:03AM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> +                   block_hpps, nr_hpps);
>>> -    perf_hpp_list__register_sort_field(&bh->block_list,
>>> -        &block_fmts[PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_TOTAL_CYCLES_PCT].fmt);
>>> +    /* Sort by the first fmt */
>>> +    perf_hpp_list__register_sort_field(&bh->block_list, 
>>> &block_fmts[0].fmt);
>>>   }
>>> -static void process_block_report(struct hists *hists,
>>> -                 struct block_report *block_report,
>>> -                 u64 total_cycles)
>>> +static int process_block_report(struct hists *hists,
>>> +                struct block_report *block_report,
>>> +                u64 total_cycles, int *block_hpps,
>>> +                int nr_hpps)
>>>   {
>>>       struct rb_node *next = rb_first_cached(&hists->entries);
>>>       struct block_hist *bh = &block_report->hist;
>>>       struct hist_entry *he;
>>> -    init_block_hist(bh, block_report->fmts);
>>> +    if (nr_hpps > PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_MAX_INDEX)
>>
>> hum, should be '>=' above.. ?
>>
>> jirka
>>
> 
> '=' should be OK.
> 
> enum {
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_TOTAL_CYCLES_PCT,
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_LBR_CYCLES,
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_CYCLES_PCT,
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_AVG_CYCLES,
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_RANGE,
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_DSO,
>      PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_MAX_INDEX
> };
> 
> PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_MAX_INDEX is 6.
> 
> If nr_hpps is 6, for example, block_hpps[] is,
> 
>          int block_hpps[6] = {
>              PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_TOTAL_CYCLES_PCT,
>              PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_LBR_CYCLES,
>              PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_CYCLES_PCT,
>              PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_AVG_CYCLES,
>              PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_RANGE,
>              PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_DSO,
>          };
> 
>          block_info__create_report(session->evlist,
>                        rep->total_cycles,
>                                            block_hpps, 6,
>                                            &rep->nr_block_reports);
> 
> That should be legal.
> 
> Thanks
> Jin Yao

Hi Jiri,

Does this explanation make sense?

Thanks
Jin Yao