On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>> but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
> >>>
> >>> currently it's:
> >>>
> >>> struct perf_file_header {
> >>> u64 magic;
> >>> u64 size;
> >>> u64 attr_size;
> >>> struct perf_file_section attrs;
> >>> struct perf_file_section data;
> >>> /* event_types is ignored */
> >>> struct perf_file_section event_types;
> >>> DECLARE_BITMAP(adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS);
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - we already store attrs as a FEATURE so we could omit that
> >>> - your patch stores only synthesized data into 'data' section (-1 idx)
> >>> this could be stored into separate file and get merged with the rest
> >>> - new header version would have 'features' section, so the features
> >>> position wouldnt depend on the 'data' end as of now and we could
> >>> easily store after all data is merged:
> >>>
> >>> struct perf_file_header {
> >>> u64 magic;
> >>> u64 size;
> >>> u64 attr_size;
> >>> struct perf_file_section features;
> >>> DECLARE_BITMAP(adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS);
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> thoughts?
> >>
> >> How come the features are being written before the sample data anyway?
> >> I would have expected:
> >> - write the data (update the index in memory)
> >> - write the features (including index)
> >>
> >
> > I think the problem is that the only way how to get features offset
> > right now is via perf_file_header::data.offset + perf_file_headerdata.size,
> > and we still use this section to carry 'sythesized' data, so it needs
> > to have correct size.
>
> Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find the start and size
> via the index? And then just lump all the data together?
thats what I suggested
>
> > I guess we could workaround that by storing the 'perf_file_header::data'
> > as the last data section. That would require to treat it the same way as
> > all other data sections, but we could keep current header layout.
>
> Would it need to be last? Logically it should precede the data that depends
> on it.
i suggested this as a workaround for having features at the end of the file
while keeping the current perf data header
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/
