Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:19:26 +0200
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "perf hists browser: Support flat callchains" appears to have
 broken parent reporting
Message-ID: <20160330141926.GA5242@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: <20160330123418.GC12336@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <20160330134634.GA3420@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160330134634.GA3420@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1586
Lines: 44

On 2016-03-30 10:46:34 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 02:34:18PM +0200, Andres Freund escreveu:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 4b3a3212233a - "perf hists browser: Support flat callchains" seems to
> > have broken callchain display in tui mode when using !flat mode, or at
> > least changed it in an unintended manner.
> 
> humm, at first I thought this would be related to --percent-limit...

I'm not using --percent-limit. Just to be sure, I did explicitly set it
to various values, and it looks unrelated.

> What tree/branch are you using? Can you try pressing 'L' to play with
> the percent limit?

I'm primarily using linus' tree, and bisected the behavioural down to
that individual commit.

It's somewhat weird that --stdio doesn't show the problem, but --tui
does. Hm.


I don't know the perf code at all, but skimming through the commit, the
following hunk looks suspicious:

@@ -263,7 +295,7 @@ static void callchain_node__init_have_children(struct callchain_node *node,
    chain = list_entry(node->val.next, struct callchain_list, list);
    chain->has_children = has_sibling;
 
-   if (!list_empty(&node->val)) {
+   if (node->val.next != node->val.prev) {
        chain = list_entry(node->val.prev, struct callchain_list, list);
        chain->has_children = !RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&node->rb_root);
    }

Reverting that individual change fixes things.  I'm not actually sure
what the post 4b3a3212233a version actually tests for?


I think that actually explains why stdio works - nodes are always
unfolded in it, thus ->has_children isn't looked at.

Andres