On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:01:17AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 6/25/14, 5:20 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > >>>maybe we dont need to fail in this case.. seems like it should > >>>not be hard to detect, wanr and recover? ;-) > >The easiest way is just to bail out and don't try to be smart, that's > >what I do now. > > > >Another approach would be to just convert all my consistency > >checks to warnings and skip invalid events (and hope it somehow works). I > >think it makes sense when for some reason we have perf.data which > >is not really consistent but we still want to get something out of it. > > If the event type does not make sense how can you trust any other field -- > like event size? > > > > >>seems to me it should not be happening at all. It seems like the head caught > >>the tail and was not properly detected. > >So you mean it perf record's fault? > > > > In my cases I am running perf-record. At the end of the session it walks the > events and in too many cases I see the message: > > 0x113f80 [0x8]: failed to process type: 68 >
hum.. 68 is PERF_RECORD_FINISHED_ROUND, so there was something wrong during the queue flush.. thus processing all the queue events and failing only if either the parsing or delivery fails 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/
