@@ -676,7 +682,12 @@ int perf_session_queue_event(struct perf_session *s, union perf_event *event,
new->timestamp = timestamp;
new->file_offset = file_offset;
- new->event = event;
+
+ if (s->copy_on_queue) {
+ new->event = malloc(event->header.size);
+ memcpy(new->event, event, event->header.size);
+ } else
+ new->event = event;
So do you think it should stay optional? This looks like a global problem, I mean
the event can be unmapped anytime for any builtin tool mapping it, right?
Also we already allocate the sample list node (struct sample_queue) from os->sample
buffer. ie: we have our own allocator there.
Probably we should reuse that and include the copied event space in "struct sample_queue"?
Also looking at it now, it seems we have a bug on the existing code:
if (!list_empty(sc)) {
new = list_entry(sc->next, struct sample_queue, list);
list_del(&new->list);
} else if (os->sample_buffer) {
new = os->sample_buffer + os->sample_buffer_idx;
if (++os->sample_buffer_idx == MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER)
os->sample_buffer = NULL;
} else {
os->sample_buffer = malloc(MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER * sizeof(*new));
if (!os->sample_buffer)
return -ENOMEM;
list_add(&os->sample_buffer->list, &os->to_free);
os->sample_buffer_idx = 2;
new = os->sample_buffer + 1;
}
If we actually run out of buffer rooms, we should realloc right after and not
wait for the next entry, otherwise we loose an event:
if (!list_empty(sc)) {
new = list_entry(sc->next, struct sample_queue, list);
list_del(&new->list);
} else {
if (os->sample_buffer) {
new = os->sample_buffer + os->sample_buffer_idx;
if (++os->sample_buffer_idx == MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER)
os->sample_buffer = NULL;
}
if (!os->sample_buffer) {
os->sample_buffer = malloc(MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER * sizeof(*new));
if (!os->sample_buffer)
return -ENOMEM;
list_add(&os->sample_buffer->list, &os->to_free);
os->sample_buffer_idx = 2;
new = os->sample_buffer + 1;
}
Although the mirrored os->sample_buffer condition check is a bit ugly and should move to
a function. But the idea is there.