[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200324132258.GX1534489@krava>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:22:58 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf dso: Fix dso comparison
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:07:23PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
SNIP
> > looks good, do we need to add the dso_id check to sort__dso_cmp?
>
> I guess with different filename there is no need to compare dso_id.
> But for same filename, adding dso_id cmp will separate out the
> samples:
>
> Ex, Without dso_id compare:
>
> $ ./perf report -s dso,dso_size -v
> 66.63% /home/ravi/a.out 4096
> 33.36% /home/ravi/Workspace/linux/tools/perf/a.out 4096
>
> $ ./perf report -s dso,dso_size
> 99.99% a.out 4096
>
>
> With below diff:
>
> - return strcmp(dso_name_l, dso_name_r);
> + ret = strcmp(dso_name_l, dso_name_r);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + else
> + return dso__cmp_id(dso_l, dso_r);
>
>
> $ ./perf report -s dso,dso_size
> 99.99% a.out 4096
> 33.36% a.out 4096
>
> though, the o/p also depends which other sort keys are used along
> with dso key. Do you think this change makes sense?
the above behaviour is something I'd expect from 'dso'
sort key to do - separate out different dsos, even with
the same name
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists