Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] tools/rv: Do not skip idle in trace
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
Date: 2025-07-16 13:05:58
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, 2025-07-16 at 14:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:18:28PM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:quoted
On Wed, 2025-07-16 at 13:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 09:14:18AM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:quoted
Currently, the userspace RV tool skips trace events triggered by the RV tool itself, this can be changed by passing the parameter -s, which sets the variable config_my_pid to 0 (instead of the tool's PID). The current condition for per-task monitors (config_has_id) does not check that config_my_pid isn't 0 to skip. In case we pass -s, we show events triggered by RV but don't show those triggered by idle (PID 0).The distinction between !my_pid and has_id is that you can in fact trace pid-0 if you want?Yes pretty much, no flag is meant to skip events from pid-0.quoted
quoted
quoted
- if (config_has_id && (config_my_pid == id)) + if (config_my_pid && config_has_id && (config_my_pid == id))But should we then not write: if (config_has_id && (config_my_pid == id))
Sorry, got a bit confused, I flipped the two while describing: * -s shows traces from RV but skips from pid-0 (unintended) * omitting -s skips events from RV (correct) If we are running a per-task monitor config_has_id is always true, we pass -s, which makes config_my_pid = 0 (intended /not/ to skip RV). Now when we are about to trace an event from idle (id=0), we skip it, although we really shouldn't. That's why we also needs to check for config_my_pid not being 0. Does it make sense? Thanks, Gabriele