DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EC36A22BDF
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:34:37 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] perf annotate: Fix wrong --show-total-period
 option showing number of samples
Message-ID: <20170724173437.GS4134@kernel.org>
References: <1500500215-16646-1-git-send-email-treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
 <20170721144748.GF4134@kernel.org>
 <20170722224605.GA2559@danjae.aot.lge.com>
 <20170723154620.GP3044@two.firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170723154620.GP3044@two.firstfloor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2172
Lines: 53

Em Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 08:46:20AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 07:46:05AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Arnaldo and Taeung,
> > 
> > (+ Andi)
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:47:48AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:36:55AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-annotate.c
> > > > @@ -177,14 +177,12 @@ static int perf_evsel__add_sample(struct perf_evsel *evsel,
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	process_branch_stack(sample->branch_stack, al, sample);
> > > >  
> > > > -	sample->period = 1;
> > > >  	sample->weight = 1;
> > > > -
> > > >  	he = hists__add_entry(hists, al, NULL, NULL, NULL, sample, true);
> > > >  	if (he == NULL)
> > > >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > > 
> > > I split the hunk above into a separate patch, as a fix, Namhyung, can
> > > you take a look at why need to unconditionally overwrite what is in
> > > sample->weight as well?
> > > 
> > > Looks fishy as it may come with a value from the kernel, parsed in
> > > perf_evsel__parse_sample(), when PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT is in
> > > perf_event_attr->sample_type.
> > > 
> > > Is it that the hists code needs a sane value when PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
> > > isn't requested in sample_type?
> > 
> > It was Andi added that code originally (05484298cbfe).  IIUC the
> > weight is only meaningful for some CPUs with Intel TSX and he used a
> > dummy value.
> 
> It's used for more than TSX. e.g. perf mem uses it for memory latencies.
> 
> > AFAIK the hists code doesn't care of it unless weight sort key is used
> > (for report).  As it's not used by annotate code, I think it'd be
> > better leaving it as is (like period).
> 
> Right, it's needed when weight is specified as a sort key. But we need
> a fallback in case the user specified weight in perf report, but
> didn't enable it for perf record.

Humm, shouldn't we fail in that case? I.e. user asks for per-sample
property not collected at 'perf record' time?

That or the weight sort order handler should see that
perf_sample->weight is zero and assume it wasn't collected then turn it
into a 1? Or just look at evsel->attr.sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT?

- Arnaldo