linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, tool: Add new event group management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:07:25 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mingo@...e.hu,
	paulus@...ba.org, cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, tool: Add new event group management

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Em Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:56:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > 
> > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Em Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > > > > I would much prefer a syntax that's more natural but requires 
> > > > > > quoting than one that's quirky and tailor made to avoid 
> > > > > > whatever current bash does. For one, there's other shells out 
> > > > > > there that might have different quoting needs and bash is of 
> > > > > > course free to extend its syntax.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, they are unlikely to extend to '+', it would break a 
> > > > > boatload of scripts I suspect.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the question would be, is a+b+c as event grouping a natural 
> > > > > syntax? If not then lets use a quoted one that is.
> > > > 
> > > >    -e groupname=event1,event2,event3
> > > > 
> > > > Seems intuitive, no?
> > > 
> > > Hm, if there's no use for 'groupname' later on then it's a 
> > > needlessly unspecified dimension. If this variant is picked then 
> > > I'd suggest to make it a fixed:
> > > 
> > >   -e group=event1,event2,event3
> > > 
> > > kind of thing instead.
> > 
> > Jiri mentioned a use for the group name, no?
> 
> Only for perf stat output, right?
> 

right.. hm, using it in perf report would need to have it
stored in the data file.. not sure thats worth the effort

maybe let's start with 'group:mod=' and we can add later something
like 'group/name:mod=' if there's need to see group name in output

I think it's better to have one event syntax for all commands

jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/