Hi Andi, On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 10:05 PM Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > @@ -57,6 +59,9 @@ static int saved_value_cmp(struct rb_node *rb_node, const > > void *entry) > > if (a->ctx != b->ctx) > > return a->ctx - b->ctx; > > > > + if (a->cgrp != b->cgrp) > > + return (char *)a->cgrp < (char *)b->cgrp ? -1 : +1; > > This means the sort order will depend on heap randomization, > which will make it harder to debug. > > Better use something stable like the inode number of the cgroup.
I don't think they are used for sorting. It's just to compare to find a matching event value. For heap randomization, we already used the same technique for evsel and runtime_stat pointers. I can make it use cgroup id but not sure it is really worth it. > > Do we have the same problem with other filters? I'm not aware of it. > > The rest of the patch looks good to me. Thanks for the review! Namhyung
