Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp760523imn; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELui6Kgl/F3B5Cs/gYQGlZfvD/lW+vDFvLsStJeews3ib0rhFI9IN6Kmy05yChOnxoGsS4tA X-Received: by 10.99.126.20 with SMTP id z20mr31135113pgc.38.1522163836788; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:17:16 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522163836; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=lRWSbCGWDTwkHo1rErmTZI1N9YTYVcIdZw+ZNP3ctoIED7pgURBHUQzVK8psBAqbkw tTHdvoxhOOqqaV6DlK5/veHDYhkxh0960L7HhycFWLSiG3WCmhpaAxsPHb3Jf0RmF26M 4wgXZP2qwoqXvziz7u4J+nAzqPgtzYXXVhreVW0wiIEMdxx0KHFZp5GRhv/wXpDSiV9/ +PNjhy37z0fuhzOQrOA9RL+m+rUYNdnbu2oEe+c5wBRvVoBwPOWHLYiFfPbfv2qUm+lL YBaQrI/SVGyrukIlSPRdZfMHXJBepwm8cQb7DRpBt5SIcSsxWVB2HSFVhxSLGI51u0dE x2lw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dmarc-filter:arc-authentication-results; bh=9EmoPsbuYhaxJ/Bb26uS747xFP6OPAe5AJYmucaWW4M=; b=H53TGZNxODOGsuAu1WeaMi9M/Y7/ZklFIWf4Vz/CcvX+wxeyPDerrCQHcltuG+pXZ8 f+r6UpH8r0EhTXDRUavQuZr988kkb+PnU8vI5qDjv31XJ2tn6twr82WPLPS+Xt1CEuF2 IJRYZcn+BzAEQZxehOMPBRbVyLqyk8Pa2jU5gh9uYRvVbrMd/+xPHm3eucbQd9xf69Hb o/hymD/wHLOmKN2yb6DDw9xeRbzUzxY4vP+Ahn703/Pag1+N8GgE90sbpABX3eoSgcoY qMpZJp96o2zpCHQE7SAvzZAA1EdH1u4kZksYB6i41COoYeWivRAGaFrRZjgDhtW0LFFO k/4A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v4si1049494pgt.83.2018.03.27.08.17.01; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752210AbeC0POj (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:14:39 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:55294 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751349AbeC0POi (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:14:38 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-172-100-180-131.stny.res.rr.com [172.100.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 352A8217A8; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:14:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 352A8217A8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:14:35 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Matthias Schiffer Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: fix stddev calculation in function profiler (again) Message-ID: <20180327111435.568b6d8a@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <966ff66c-5ab9-23c4-7c23-01a802c20159@universe-factory.net> References: <20180326125131.15fba249@gandalf.local.home> <966ff66c-5ab9-23c4-7c23-01a802c20159@universe-factory.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:51:49 +0200 Matthias Schiffer wrote: > I mentioned in my commit message was caused by the second MIPS-specific > issue I mentioned in my last mail, so while this method may lead to > inaccurate results [1], and it is certainly not Welford's method, it might > be good enough in practice, and you can disregard my patch. Thanks for verifying. Did you have any other patches to this code I need to look at? -- Steve