On 2025-06-13 10:07, Peter Xu wrote: > Unfortunately, it was never correctly shown.. > > This is only found when I started to look into making the blocktime feature > more useful (so as to avoid using bpftrace, even though I'm not sure which > one will be harder to use..). > > So the old dump would look like this: > > Postcopy vCPU Blocktime: 0-1,4,10,21,33,46,48,59 > > Even though there're actually 40 vcpus, and the string will merge same > elements and also sort them. > > To fix it, simply loop over the uint32List manually. Now it looks like: > > Postcopy vCPU Blocktime (ms): > [15, 0, 0, 43, 29, 34, 36, 29, 37, 41, > 33, 37, 45, 52, 50, 38, 40, 37, 40, 49, > 40, 35, 35, 35, 81, 19, 18, 19, 18, 30, > 22, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] > > Cc: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <d...@treblig.org> > Cc: Alexey Perevalov <a.pereva...@samsung.com> > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > Tested-by: Mario Casquero <mcasq...@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > ---
Reviewed-by: Juraj Marcin <jmar...@redhat.com>
