From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756589AbbLHNxr (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:53:47 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:44367 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755481AbbLHNxp (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:53:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:53:36 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Jiri Olsa , lkml , David Ahern , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf stat: Change event enable code Message-ID: <20151208135336.GE11564@kernel.org> References: <1449133606-14429-1-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org> <20151207210908.GC11564@kernel.org> <566686EF.3040505@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <566686EF.3040505@intel.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? - Arnaldo