On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
> >> + * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
> >> + * we may run into a situation where the first CPU in a package
> >> + * is not running anything, yet the second is, and this function
> >> + * would mark the package as used after the first CPU and would
> >> + * not read the values from the second CPU.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!(vals->run && vals->ena))
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> s = cpu_map__get_socket(cpus, cpu);
> >> if (s < 0)
> >> return -1;
> >> @@ -235,7 +247,7 @@ process_counter_values(struct perf_stat_config
> >> *config, struct perf_evsel *evsel
> >> static struct perf_counts_values zero;
> >> bool skip = false;
> >>
> >> - if (check_per_pkg(evsel, cpu, &skip)) {
> >> + if (check_per_pkg(evsel, aggr, cpu, &skip)) {
> >
> > should we pass 'count' instead o 'aggr' ?
> >
> the reason I passed counts_values is in case this function needs to be
> called from other places which do
> not use aggr mode.
sure, but 'aggr' is being computed within process_counter_values
process_counter_values gets 'count' argument with values read
for given cpu/thread for further processing, and it seems to
me that 'count' values should be passed to check_per_pkg
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/
