* Dongsheng Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Dongsheng <[email protected]>
>
> In output of perf sched map, any shortname of thread will be explained
> at the first time when it appear.
>
> Example:
> *A0 228836.978985 secs A0 => perf:23032
> *. A0 228836.979016 secs B0 => swapper:0
> . *C0 228836.979099 secs C0 => migration/3:22
> *A0 . C0 228836.979115 secs
> A0 . *. 228836.979115 secs
>
> But B0, which is explained as swapper:0 did not appear in the
> left part of output. Instead, we use '.' as the shortname of
> swapper:0. So the comment of "B0 => swapper:0" is not easy to
> understand.
>
> This patch clarify the output of perf sched map with not allocating
> one letter-number shortname for swapper:0 and print ". => swapper:0"
> as the explaination for swapper:0.
>
> Example:
> *A0 228836.978985 secs A0 => perf:23032
> * . A0 228836.979016 secs . => swapper:0
> . *B0 228836.979099 secs B0 => migration/3:22
> *A0 . B0 228836.979115 secs
> A0 . * . 228836.979115 secs
> A0 *C0 . 228836.979225 secs C0 => ksoftirqd/2:18
> A0 *D0 . 228836.979236 secs D0 => rcu_sched:7
Sounds good!
I only have some minor nits about the code:
> tools/perf/builtin-sched.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c b/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c
> index 4f0dd21..c2bf8f2 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-sched.c
> @@ -1300,17 +1300,23 @@ static int map_switch_event(struct perf_sched *sched,
> struct perf_evsel *evsel,
>
> new_shortname = 0;
> if (!sched_in->shortname[0]) {
> - sched_in->shortname[0] = sched->next_shortname1;
> - sched_in->shortname[1] = sched->next_shortname2;
> -
> - if (sched->next_shortname1 < 'Z') {
> - sched->next_shortname1++;
> - } else {
> - sched->next_shortname1='A';
> - if (sched->next_shortname2 < '9') {
> - sched->next_shortname2++;
> + if (!strcmp(thread__comm_str(sched_in), "swapper")) {
> + sched_in->shortname[0] = '.';
> + sched_in->shortname[1] = '\0';
> + }
> + else {
Should be '} else {' as per kernel coding style.
Also, a comment about handling the idle task in a special way would be
useful - for the far future when this discussion will be distant
memories or less!
With those nits addressed:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
