Re: [PATCH 3/4] perf session: Avoid calling lseek(2) for pipe

[James Clark]

On 27/01/2023 00:19, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> We should not call lseek(2) for pipes as it won't work.  And we already
> in the proper place to read the data for AUXTRACE.  Add the comment like
> in the PERF_RECORD_HEADER_TRACING_DATA.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/perf/util/session.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> index 7c021c6cedb9..fdfe772f2699 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> @@ -1699,8 +1699,13 @@ static s64 perf_session__process_user_event(struct perf_session *session,
>  	case PERF_RECORD_AUXTRACE_INFO:
>  		return tool->auxtrace_info(session, event);
>  	case PERF_RECORD_AUXTRACE:
> -		/* setup for reading amidst mmap */
> -		lseek(fd, file_offset + event->header.size, SEEK_SET);
> +		/*
> +		 * Setup for reading amidst mmap, but only when we
> +		 * are in 'file' mode.  The 'pipe' fd is in proper
> +		 * place already.
> +		 */
> +		if (!perf_data__is_pipe(session->data))
> +			lseek(fd, file_offset + event->header.size, SEEK_SET);

I'm not sure if it means anything, but Arm SPE works both with and
without this change, although I did have to skip the build-id inject part:

  perf record -o- -e arm_spe// stress -c 1 -t 1 | \
    perf report -i- --itrace=i1000


>  		return tool->auxtrace(session, event);
>  	case PERF_RECORD_AUXTRACE_ERROR:
>  		perf_session__auxtrace_error_inc(session, event);