From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752085AbdJPJlc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:41:32 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:34846 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751358AbdJPJlb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:41:31 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,386,1503385200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="163101853" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:34:40 +0800 From: "Du, Changbin" To: Jiri Olsa Cc: "Du, Changbin" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org Subject: Re: Does perf-annotate work correctly? Message-ID: <20171016093439.GA10280@intel.com> References: <20170912101035.GA21638@intel.com> <20170912143350.GA3452@kernel.org> <20170913091408.GA9625@intel.com> <20171013101500.GA29995@intel.com> <20171016092853.GA31858@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171016092853.GA31858@krava> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28:53AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 06:15:00PM +0800, Du, Changbin wrote: > > Hi Jiri, > > Sorry, missed you (but get_maintainer.pl doesn't list you). Here is eal= ier email. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/12/158 > >=20 > > Do you think if this is a real issue? >=20 > SNIP >=20 > > > 0.02 =E2=94=82 test %esi,%esi = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 =E2=86=93 js 25 = =E2=96=92 > > > 99.98 =E2=94=82 =E2=86=90 retq = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=8225: push %rbp = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 mov $0x440a,%ecx = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 mov $0x440c,%edx = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 vmx_complete_interrupts(): = =E2=97=86 > > > =E2=94=82 break; = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 } = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 } = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 static void vmx_complete_interrupts(struct vcpu_v= mx *vmx) =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 { = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 mov %rsp,%rbp = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 =E2=86=92 callq __vmx_complete_interrupts.part.6= 4 =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 __vmx_complete_interrupts(&vmx->vcpu, vmx= ->idt_vectoring_info, =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 pop %rbp = =E2=96=92 > > > =E2=94=82 =E2=86=90 retq = =E2=96=92 >=20 > hi, > there's 'o' key to togle the instruction address or you > can use the perf annotate --stdio to get it.. should be > easier to tell if that's the same instruction > Thanks for replying. I know the reason now, the instructions are shown in pc address order, and some C statments are split into chunks. It gives me a illusion. Thanks. > jirka >=20 --=20 Thanks, Changbin Du --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZ5H0vAAoJEAanuZwLnPNUuF4H/0+6x11r7Wo2bWSGHyuU3TYz 1g35HtZD4N3Us0wDidirHd9b824IKGG6iJjaPULEoZ1BE+6VBm8DxeeZ4kMRJJXC SOYu9G6zvGszafTcckHMXXwEroSgPWlgz5Qpp/yektZ1VA7n8JVq/7++5lz/Q1yh 1n2bASZZ1HIMzeUOjwnHlrf8XuGbgt1EaEByFiw2+laslVIFM6ORjoAM0AZzc6Yg 3PadTOmfx3NvH808TvZAvpu7vrWOu4Qo7M2leopOJWhmhex2FngYy+GF6Toipjjf i0vUEgmBquQ36CG9K7kAm97vyrmc7uBNhmVMqwldonPIwTJooxdFdGqz7oKv9AE= =7yFi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--