Em Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:36:55AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu: > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-annotate.c > @@ -177,14 +177,12 @@ static int perf_evsel__add_sample(struct perf_evsel > *evsel, > */ > process_branch_stack(sample->branch_stack, al, sample); > > - sample->period = 1; > sample->weight = 1; > - > he = hists__add_entry(hists, al, NULL, NULL, NULL, sample, true); > if (he == NULL) > return -ENOMEM;
I split the hunk above into a separate patch, as a fix, Namhyung, can you take a look at why need to unconditionally overwrite what is in sample->weight as well? Looks fishy as it may come with a value from the kernel, parsed in perf_evsel__parse_sample(), when PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT is in perf_event_attr->sample_type. Is it that the hists code needs a sane value when PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT isn't requested in sample_type? The resulting cset is below. - Arnaldo commit a935e8cd8d5d4b7936c4b4cf27c2d0e87d1a6a66 Author: Taeung Song <[email protected]> Date: Fri Jul 21 11:38:48 2017 -0300 perf annotate: Do not overwrite sample->period In fixing the --show-total-period option it was noticed that the value of sample->period was being overwritten, fix it. Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> Cc: Milian Wolff <[email protected]> Cc: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> Fixes: fd36f3dd7933 ("perf hist: Pass struct sample to __hists__add_entry()") [ split from a larger patch, added the Fixes tag ] Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-annotate.c b/tools/perf/builtin-annotate.c index 96fe1a88c1e5..7e33278eff67 100644 --- a/tools/perf/builtin-annotate.c +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-annotate.c @@ -177,7 +177,6 @@ static int perf_evsel__add_sample(struct perf_evsel *evsel, */ process_branch_stack(sample->branch_stack, al, sample); - sample->period = 1; sample->weight = 1; he = hists__add_entry(hists, al, NULL, NULL, NULL, sample, true);
