On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 05:51:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: SNIP
> In the second case it almost works, modulo that warning. > > I think that what we need to achieve is for older tools to be able to, with a > file produced by 'perf stat record', to show this: > > [root@zoo ~]# perf report --no-header --stdio > Error: > The perf.data file has no samples! > # To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only > options. > # > [root@zoo ~]# > > > I.e. the file should look like one that is produced by this command, purposely > to not create any sample: > > # perf record -e syscalls:sys_enter_accept usleep 1 > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.018 MB perf.data ] > > > I applied the first patch and added it to that perf/stat branch. well.. it's either simple patches and step by step functionality or one big with everything.. [PATCH 02/25] perf stat record: Add record command - adds record command that creates empty perf.data [PATCH 03/25] perf stat record: Initialize record features - adds FEATURES initialization for stat data [PATCH 04/25] perf stat record: Synthesize stat record data - adds meta data [PATCH 05/25] perf stat record: Store events IDs in perf data file - adds event IDs ... you get proper warning right after patch 3/25, where we store STAT feature bit and properly check it when opening perf.data I can merge patch 2 and 3 to get the proper warning from begining.. but that'd be bigger patch ;-) thanks, jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
