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: 6+ 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 10:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-11-15 1:00 ` zhangmengting
2017-11-20 7:33 ` Jiri Olsa
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).