[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55896847.8000105@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:08:07 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
CC: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 00/27] perf stat: Introduce --per-thread option
On 23/06/15 17:05, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:06:00PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:36:01AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>>>> adding the possibility to display stat data per thread.
>
>>>> Allowing following commands and output:
>
>>>> $ perf stat -e cycles,instructions --per-thread -p 30190,30242
>
>>> While testing Adrian's Intel PT patchkit I realised we have --per-thread
>>> in 'record', wonder if using a long option with the exact same name but
>>> different meanings for 'stat' and 'record' would cause confusion...
>
>> I think the name fits for both stat and record.. and both are doing different
>
> For record it is vague, for stat, it seems to fit.
>
> For record it really should be --mmap-per-thread, but then we start
> getting what may seem overly long options, but then, its an oddball
> 'record' option...
It is not just the mmap, it is also the perf context. So it is central to
the way perf works.
--
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