linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/17] perf tools: Add support for hierachy view (v2)

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]

Message-ID: <20160121041757.GE10179@sejong>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:17:57 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Taeung Song <taeung.dev@...il.com>
CC:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Moinuddin Quadri <moin18@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/17] perf tools: Add support for hierachy view
 (v2)

Hi Taeung,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:34:57AM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 12:08 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:49:29PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
> >>On 01/20/2016 09:34 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:59:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >>>>Ok, tested, this is really nice, I think it should be the default, from
> >>>>where to drill down, we could have a '--no-hierarchy', Ingo?
> >>>
> >>>Yeah, we already have --no-hierarchy (as a side effect of having
> >>>--hierarchy) but I don't want to change the default now since existing
> >>>users will complain.  Now we have 'tips' in the perf report browser,
> >>>maybe it's enough to add a line to suggest to use it (and it's already
> >>>done by this patchset).  I remember the time we changed default for
> >>>'--children' and many people complained about it.
> >>>
> >>>We maybe change the default later but I think it's better to have some
> >>>time to people can play with it and find it useful. :)  And, as always,
> >>>we can have a config option to control the default.
> >>
> >>If adding this config option,
> >>can this be included in 'hist' section ?
> >>If it isn't, 'report' and 'top' section ?
> >>i.e.
> >>
> >>[report]
> >>     hierarchy = true
> >>[top]
> >>     hierarchy = false
> >
> >Either is fine.  But as we already have report.children and
> >top.children, I'd follow the convention.  Also I think we should set
> >priority of the two configs - children and hierarchy.  IMHO hierarchy
> >should be considered first.
> >
> >Or maybe we could have 'report.output-default' being one of
> >'hierarchy', 'children', or 'normal'.  This way we can set the default
> >behavior easily including possible future changes.
> >
> 
> Oh, IMHO I think the latter is better than the former.
> If using 'report.output-default' instead of 'report.children'
> and 'report.hierarchy' etc integrating the configs,
> it seems to be tidy.

OK

> Whatever this config variables will be set as,
> after this patchset are merged I'll ask about this configs, again.

I'll add you in the CC list wrt config changes.

Thanks,
Namhyung