From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754771AbbLINtg (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 08:49:36 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:30693 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754640AbbLINte (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 08:49:34 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,403,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="868005710" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf stat: Change event enable code To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo References: <1449133606-14429-1-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org> <20151207210908.GC11564@kernel.org> <566686EF.3040505@intel.com> <20151208135336.GE11564@kernel.org> Cc: Jiri Olsa , lkml , David Ahern , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Peter Zijlstra From: Adrian Hunter Organization: Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki, Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki Message-ID: <5668302C.3030004@intel.com> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:44:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151208135336.GE11564@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/12/15 15:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:29:51AM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu: >> On 07/12/15 23:09, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>> Em Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:06:39AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: >>>> while testing ftrace:function event I noticed we create >>>> stat counters as enabled (except for enable_on_exec couters). >>>> >>>> This way we count also filter setup and other config code >>>> which might be crucial for some events. >>>> >>>> Posponing the events enable once everything is ready. >>>> >>>> The last patch is RFC as I wasn't sure there's some hidden >>>> catch about perf_evlist__(enable|disable)_event functions >>>> I missed.. Adrian? > >>> They look the same, Adrian? > >>> Applied the first 6, will give some more time to Adrian to chime in. > >> Looks like there might already be a problem using evsel->threads instead of >> evlist->threads with the logic relating to evsel->system_wide getting lost - >> but that happened already in "perf evlist: Factor >> perf_evlist__(enable|disable) functions". Probably the threads should not >> be propagated in that case, but it needs more investigation. I will try to >> look at it today. > > Thanks! Is that covered by any 'perf test' entry? Do you think having > some sort of Intel PT test to run on capable machines would be feasible? There is "Test tracking with sched_switch". There was an issue where 'perf record' was working differently to the tests. I will try to find where the gaps are. Seems I have run out of time again today though.