Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754697AbeALLmL (ORCPT + 1 other); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:42:11 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59342 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754403AbeALLmJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:42:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:42:06 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: "Liang, Kan" Cc: "acme@kernel.org" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "wangnan0@huawei.com" , "jolsa@kernel.org" , "namhyung@kernel.org" , "ak@linux.intel.com" , "yao.jin@linux.intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 08/12] perf top: check per event overwrite term Message-ID: <20180112114206.GA25413@krava> References: <1513879734-237492-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <1513879734-237492-9-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <20180111142549.GD16655@krava> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077537FFC1F@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077537FFC1F@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:29:21PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:08:50AM -0800, kan.liang@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Kan Liang > > > > > > Per event overwrite term is not forbidden in perf top, which can bring > > > problems. Because perf top only support non-overwrite mode. > > > > > > Check and forbid inconsistent per event overwrite term in the evlist. > > > Make it possible to support either non-overwrite or overwrite mode. > > > The overwrite mode is forbidden now, which will be removed when the > > > overwrite mode is supported later. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang > > > --- > > > tools/perf/builtin-top.c | 60 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-top.c b/tools/perf/builtin-top.c > > > index c6ccda5..4b85e7b 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-top.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-top.c > > > @@ -881,6 +881,56 @@ static void perf_top__mmap_read(struct perf_top > > *top) > > > perf_top__mmap_read_idx(top, i); > > > } > > > > > > +/* > > > + * Check per event overwrite term. > > > + * perf top supports consistent mode for all events. > > > + * Return -1 if the per event terms set but not consistent. > > > > please list the rules for overwrite in the comment > > are they just top specific? > > Yes, it's only for perf top. > It doesn't support that some events are overwrite mode and other events are > non-overwrite mode. > I will refine the comments. > > > > > SNIP > > > > > + if (evsel == perf_evlist__first(evlist)) > > > + overwrite = set; > > > + else > > > + return -1; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + if ((overwrite >= 0) && (opts->overwrite != overwrite)) > > > + opts->overwrite = overwrite; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > static int perf_top__start_counters(struct perf_top *top) > > > { > > > char msg[BUFSIZ]; > > > @@ -890,6 +940,16 @@ static int perf_top__start_counters(struct > > perf_top *top) > > > > > > perf_evlist__config(evlist, opts, &callchain_param); > > > > so perf_evlist__config uses opts->overwrite, which you set > > in your perf_top_overwrite_check call.. I'd think you need > > to call it sooner > > > > User may set per-event mode, which is processed in perf_evlist__config > It's possible that the per-event mode is not same as opts->overwrite. > If so, perf_evlist__config actually uses per-event mode. > > perf_top_overwrite_check will do the check. If the per-event mode is > inconsistent as opts->overwrite, updating the opts->overwrite. > > It has to be called after the perf_evlist__config. let's see the rules then first, also wrt opts->overwrite, which is used later on I assume thanks, jirka