I believe that Jiri understands this code better than I do.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:21:46 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > But now
I believe that Jiri understands this code better than I do.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:21:46 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > But now you've got me looking at
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > But now you've got me looking at 75e8387685f6, which also looks
> > completely insane.
>
> The reason I insta stumbled on that patch is that it only addresses the
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:04:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > But now you've got me looking at 75e8387685f6, which also looks
> > completely insane.
>
> The reason I insta stumbled on that patch is that it only addresses the
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:18:13PM +0800, chengjian (D) wrote:
> and what cases should the events be delivered multiple times?
Task-A Task-B Task-C Task-D
fd = sys_perf_event_open(B) fd = sys_perf_event_open(C)
wake_up_process(C)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:18:13PM +0800, chengjian (D) wrote:
> and what cases should the events be delivered multiple times?
Task-A Task-B Task-C Task-D
fd = sys_perf_event_open(B) fd = sys_perf_event_open(C)
wake_up_process(C)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But now you've got me looking at 75e8387685f6, which also looks
> completely insane.
The reason I insta stumbled on that patch is that it only addresses the
ftrace situation and doesn't mention the other _5_ places that use this
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But now you've got me looking at 75e8387685f6, which also looks
> completely insane.
The reason I insta stumbled on that patch is that it only addresses the
ftrace situation and doesn't mention the other _5_ places that use this
On 2017/10/10 19:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
No, this _cannot_ be right. The whole point of the @task argument was to
deliver the event multiple times -- maybe not to the same event, but it
needs to be delivered multiple times in some cases. Therefore this is
broken.
But now you've got me
On 2017/10/10 19:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
No, this _cannot_ be right. The whole point of the @task argument was to
deliver the event multiple times -- maybe not to the same event, but it
needs to be delivered multiple times in some cases. Therefore this is
broken.
But now you've got me
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:19:39AM +0800, Cheng Jian wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index baa134c..5682ead 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -7988,12 +7988,16 @@ void perf_tp_event(u16 event_type, u64 count, void
> *record,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:19:39AM +0800, Cheng Jian wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index baa134c..5682ead 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -7988,12 +7988,16 @@ void perf_tp_event(u16 event_type, u64 count, void
> *record,
When use perf to trace the sched_wakeup and sched_wakeup_new tracepoint,
there is a bug that output the same event repetitiously.
It can be reproduced by :
perf record -e sched:sched_wakeup_new ./bug_fork
bug_fork is an demo that can generating wakeup_new events :
the parent
When use perf to trace the sched_wakeup and sched_wakeup_new tracepoint,
there is a bug that output the same event repetitiously.
It can be reproduced by :
perf record -e sched:sched_wakeup_new ./bug_fork
bug_fork is an demo that can generating wakeup_new events :
the parent
14 matches
Mail list logo