linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/52] perf report: Add 'type' sort key

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:54:13 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/52] perf report: Add 'type' sort key

Em Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:49:13AM -0800, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 9:55 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> > ⬢[acme@...lbox perf-tools-next]$ perf report -s type
> > perf: Segmentation fault
> > -------- backtrace --------
> > perf[0x69f743]
> > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x3dbb0)[0x7f89b4778bb0]
> > perf[0x505af6]
<SNIP>
> > perf[0x504f01]
> > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x27b8a)[0x7f89b4762b8a]
> > /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0x8b)[0x7f89b4762c4b]
> > perf[0x40ed65]
> > ⬢[acme@...lbox perf-tools-next]$
>
> Right, the 'type' sort key was added here but unfortunately
> it's not ready for prime time yet.  It also needs the next patch
> 19/52 ("perf report: Support data type profiling") to fully enable
> the feature.  Do you think it's better to squash into here?

I haven't checked if squashing would be a good idea, but if you think
its the right granularity, then do it, as long as we can test features
in various ways as they are getting added, as I did, using a random
perf.data file.

- Arnaldo