Any chance this patch can be included in the next release? Thanks, Gwendal. On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Keep scanning the tree for overlapping IO otherwise Q2G and process > traces will be incorrect. > > Let assume we have 2 IOs: > > A A+a > |---------------------------------------| > B B+b > |-----------------| > > In the red/black tree we have: > > o -> [A,A+a] > / \ > left right > / \ > [...]o o -> [B, B+b] > > In the current code, if we would not be able to find [B+b] in the tree: > B is greater than A, so we won't go left > B+b is smaller than A+a, so we are not going right either. > > When we have a [X, X+x] IO to look for: > We need to check for right when either: > X+x >= A+a (for merged IO) > and > X > A (for overlapping IO) > > TEST=Check with a trace with overlapping IO: Q2C and Q2G are expected. > > Signed-off-by: Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > btt/dip_rb.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/btt/dip_rb.c b/btt/dip_rb.c > index 2aa7ffc..6efef6c 100644 > --- a/btt/dip_rb.c > +++ b/btt/dip_rb.c > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ struct io *rb_find_sec(struct rb_root *root, __u64 sec) > __iop = rb_entry(n, struct io, rb_node); > if (sec < BIT_START(__iop)) > n = n->rb_left; > - else if (sec >= BIT_END(__iop)) > + else if (sec > BIT_START(__iop)) > n = n->rb_right; > else > return __iop; > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ void rb_foreach(struct rb_node *n, struct io *iop, > } > if (iop_s < this_s) > rb_foreach(n->rb_left, iop, fnc, head); > - if (this_e < iop_e) > + if ((this_e < iop_e) || (this_s < iop_s)) > rb_foreach(n->rb_right, iop, fnc, head); > } > } > -- > 2.14.1.480.gb18f417b89-goog > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrace" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
