[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131115115245.GD10456@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:52:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:34:05AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That brings up an interesting question: what is better for users, if
> we schedule as many as we can and say 'not supported' to the rest
> (current behavior), or if we fail the whole group?
>
> I'd say that the default behavior should be what Jiri implemented: get
> the most out of the situation and inform. But you are right in that
> 'forcing' all elements of a group to be valid should be possible as
> well - if a special perf stat option or event format is used.
So I don't agree, but if you want to keep this IMO weird behaviour at
least WARN about it in big blinking neon letters that the user isn't
getting what he asked for.
--
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