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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:59:57 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> Cc: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, dev@...yps.com, Michael Ellerman <michaele@....ibm.com>, Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, hbabu@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] tools/perf: support parsing parameterized events On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:06:27AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:25:20PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Jiri Olsa [jolsa@...hat.com] wrote: > > | On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:27:15PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > | > From: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > | > > > | > Enable event specification like: > > | > > > | > pmu/event_name,param1=0x1,param2=0x4/ > > | > > > | > Assuming that > > | > > > | > /sys/bus/event_source/devices/pmu/events/event_name > > | > > > | > Contains something like > > | > > > | > param2=foo,bar=1,param1=baz > > | > > | hum, so what happened to the '?' ... AFAIU from out last discussion, > > | you wanted to mark terms which are mandatory and user must provide > > | values for them.. and I thought the decision was to have following > > | alias record: > > | > > | $ cat /sys/bus/event_source/devices/pmu/events/event_name > > | param2=?,bar=1,param1=? > > | > > | while perf would scream if any of param1/2 wasnt filled like for: > > | pmu/event_name,param1=0x1/ > > > > Sorry, I meant to make perf list consistent with sysfs. > > > > Consider these two sysfs entries: > > > > $ cat HPM_0THRD_NON_IDLE_CCYC__PHYS_CORE > > domain=0x2,offset=0xe0,starting_index=core,lpar=0x0 > > > > $ cat HPM_0THRD_NON_IDLE_CCYC__VCPU_HOME_CORE > > domain=0x3,offset=0xe0,starting_index=vcpu,lpar=sibling_guest_id > > > > In the first one, starting_index refers to a 'core' while in the second > > it refers to a vcpu. This serves as a "hint" for the parameter's meaning. > > > > By replacing both with 'starting_index=?' we lose that hint. > > > > Should we fix both sysfs and 'perf list' to say > > > > starting_index=?core > > Peter, Ingo, > any opinions on this? Overall explanation is in here: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141158688307356&w=2 Consistency is good, and you indeed need to indicate it is a parameter. I'm not entirely sure about ?core, but I suppose its easy to parse and clear enough to read. So the typical optional argument syntax would be like $arg or <type> like. But overall I have no objection as long as you keep the lot consistent and parsable. -- 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