On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
>
You do not want to aggregate values, you want to look at the individual events
for each CPU because you need to look at their run/ena fields.
--
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/
