Em Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 08:04:32AM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu: > Hi Mathieu, > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:53:54PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > Hi Leo and Al, > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:47:50PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > > > From: Al Grant <[email protected]> > > > > > > Commit 42bbabed09ce ("perf tools: Add hw_idx in struct branch_stack") > > > changed the format of branch stacks in perf samples. When samples use > > > this new format, a flag must be set in the corresponding event. > > > Synthesized branch stacks generated from CoreSight ETM trace were using > > > the new format, but not setting the event attribute, leading to > > > consumers seeing corrupt data. This patch fixes the issue by setting the > > > event attribute to indicate use of the new format. > > > > > > Fixes: 42bbabed09ce ("perf tools: Add hw_idx in struct branch_stack") > > > Signed-off-by: Al Grant <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Andrea Brunato <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c | 9 ++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c > > > index c283223fb31f..a2a369e2fbb6 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c > > > @@ -1344,8 +1344,15 @@ static int cs_etm__synth_events(struct > > > cs_etm_auxtrace *etm, > > > attr.sample_type &= ~(u64)PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR; > > > } > > > > > > - if (etm->synth_opts.last_branch) > > > + if (etm->synth_opts.last_branch) { > > > attr.sample_type |= PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK; > > > + /* > > > + * We don't use the hardware index, but the sample generation > > > + * code uses the new format branch_stack with this field, > > > + * so the event attributes must indicate that it's present. > > > + */ > > > + attr.branch_sample_type |= PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX; > > > + } > > > > I've see this patch before... I thought it had been merged - what happened? > > This patch before has been sent by Al to CoreSight mailing list but has > not sent to LKML, this is why I resent it to LKML in case it's missed.
So, was it Acked on the CoreSight mailing list? Are we missing any Acked-by or Reviewed-by for this 1/2 patch as we got for 2/2? - Arnaldo
