[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1307252351010.26524@pianoman.cluster.toy>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, acme@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, trinity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools, perf: Add a precise event qualifier v2
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Sorry I meant flags as an alias of "the 64bits currently occupied by the
> bitfield". Perhaps the name choice was not very good.
>
> "flags_bitfield" ?
>
> So the tool would only need to know that, not every bit.
>
> In theory it could be also generalized as a byte offset to perf_event,
> but that may be overengineered.
I somehow doubt this would be acceptable. If it were, we could have had a
somewhat better interface by just having the event fields be a list of
values without involving format/* at all, something like
config=0x58034;config1=0x20;precise_ip=0x4
For whatever reason things have to be human readable, and I don't think
just having an opaque 64-bit "flags" value will be accepted.
I'm likely wrong though, I have a very low accuracy rate for predicting
future perf_event design decisions.
This is all complicated by the intertwined nature of the perf_event ABI
and the perf tool, and the way that there's at least three or four
different ways to specify the same event from the perf tool command line.
Vince
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists