From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: perf timechart broken Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:09:05 -0700 Message-ID: <4D308331.6010106@cisco.com> References: <201101071104.37576.trenn@suse.de> <201101110955.37560.trenn@suse.de> <4D2CA7D6.2070203@cisco.com> <201101141800.18913.trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]:24205 "EHLO sj-iport-3.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752043Ab1ANRJH (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:09:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <201101141800.18913.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Renninger Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ingo Molnar , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, LKML On 01/14/11 10:00, Thomas Renninger wrote: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-perf- > users@vger.kernel.org/msg00057.html > Looks slightly different, the segfault should happen in: > process_sample_event > But looks very much related, possibly it has not been made/make with > DEBUG=1 > and -O6 was added and the backtrace is not 100% correct? perf was built with DEBUG=1; that's how I got the pretty backtrace versus having the arguments optimized out. The cpu=6291457 is the garbage causing the segfault (there are only 2 cores in the system). 6291457 = 0x600001. Perhaps a mask is missing? David > > I still did not have time to send it out, will do so on Mo. > > Thomas