Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200807164937.44921-1-dsahern@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200807164937.44921-1-dsahern@kernel.org>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:42:54 +0900
Message-ID: <CAM9d7chXrXh1QfJfwsEJ_Tk0_EDNL9ajBE8H0QYCSn_yuLhNUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf sched timehist: Fix use of CPU list with summary option
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 1:49 AM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Do not update thread stats or show idle summary unless CPU is in
> the list of interest.
>
> Fixes: c30d630d1bcf ("perf sched timehist: Add support for filtering on CPU")
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
> ---
>  tools/perf/builtin-sched.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c b/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c
> index 0c7d599fa555..82ee0dfd1831 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c
> @@ -2575,7 +2575,8 @@ static int timehist_sched_change_event(struct perf_tool *tool,
>         }
>
>         if (!sched->idle_hist || thread->tid == 0) {
> -               timehist_update_runtime_stats(tr, t, tprev);
> +               if (!cpu_list || test_bit(sample->cpu, cpu_bitmap))
> +                       timehist_update_runtime_stats(tr, t, tprev);
>
>                 if (sched->idle_hist) {
>                         struct idle_thread_runtime *itr = (void *)tr;
> @@ -2848,6 +2849,9 @@ static void timehist_print_summary(struct perf_sched *sched,
>
>         printf("\nIdle stats:\n");
>         for (i = 0; i < idle_max_cpu; ++i) {
> +               if (!test_bit(i, cpu_bitmap))

Shouldn't it check cpu_list as well?

Thanks

Namhyung


> +                       continue;
> +
>                 t = idle_threads[i];
>                 if (!t)
>                         continue;
> --
> 2.17.1
>