On 5/9/13 7:10 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
I think we should not truncate file_size for this case. It was
decreased to data_offset + data_size in order not to read unrelated
metadata (additional header feature info). But in this case, since
data_size is 0 it'd have same value as data_offset, and i
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:30:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Btw., would it make sense to emit a (once-only) warning and optimistically
>> fix page_offset up to 1 (or 4096) and let things continue with the next
>> set of data - can we recover most of the data in that
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * David Ahern wrote:
>
> > Recovery algorithm in __perf_session__process_events attempts to remap
> > a perf.data file with a different file_offset and try again at a new head
> > position. Both of these adjustment rely on page_offset. If page_offset is
> > 0 then fil
* David Ahern wrote:
> Recovery algorithm in __perf_session__process_events attempts to remap
> a perf.data file with a different file_offset and try again at a new head
> position. Both of these adjustment rely on page_offset. If page_offset is
> 0 then file_offset and head never change which m
Recovery algorithm in __perf_session__process_events attempts to remap
a perf.data file with a different file_offset and try again at a new head
position. Both of these adjustment rely on page_offset. If page_offset is
0 then file_offset and head never change which means the remap attempt is
the sa
5 matches
Mail list logo