From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: zhangmengting <zhangmengting@huawei.com>
Cc: namhyung@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
acme@kernel.org, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, huawei.libin@huawei.com,
wangnan0@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf parse events: Fix invalid precise_ip handling
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:23:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171121152357.GN20440@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1a249a21-5e93-7434-8b6f-08241513dceb@huawei.com>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 04:30:09PM +0800, zhangmengting wrote:
SNIP
> > > > also I think the precise level is not generic for all the events,
> > > > so you should check it for specific perf_event_attr later, when
> > > > the attr is ready, not in modifier parsing
> > > You are right, and I would check it for specific perf_event_attr.
> > >
> > > BTW, I have a question. If the user-specified precise_ip is greater than the
> > > max precise_ip, I wonder
> > > whether it is better to adjust the user-specified precise_ip to the maximum
> > > available.
> > no, I think that user defined precise level should stay the
> > way the user wants it.. we don't want more angry users ;-)
>
> Humm, I am sorry for being unclear.
> If the user defined precise level is greater than the max precise level,
> I think there are two ways to deal with it.
> 1. return EINVAL to indicate the invalid precise_ip setting;
and warn user about the reason
> 2. adjust to the max precise level available and give message to indicate
> the adjustment.
we do that (or should) only if the precise_ip is not defined by user
because we want the max precise level by default
> Since we should check user-defined precise level in perf_evsel__config(),
> when the attr is ready, I think there is a problem with method 1, if we keep
> the
> user defined precise level stay the way the user wants it.
>
> With method 1, we have to let perf_evsel__config() return value and show
> errno.
> And this change will affect many related functions, such as
> perf_evlist__config(), and files.
>
> With method 2, we don't need to change the return type of
> perf_evsel__config().
>
> Am I right?
not sure.. let's discuss over the code changes
jirka
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-21 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-10 8:28 [PATCH] perf parse events: Fix invalid precise_ip handling Mengting Zhang
2017-11-10 8:28 ` Mengting Zhang
2017-11-10 10:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-11-15 1:00 ` zhangmengting
2017-11-15 1:00 ` zhangmengting
2017-11-20 7:33 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-11-21 8:30 ` zhangmengting
2017-11-21 8:30 ` zhangmengting
2017-11-21 15:23 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171121152357.GN20440@krava \
--to=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=huawei.libin@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=wangnan0@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangmengting@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.