[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <850a0774-9442-c836-f457-69e1e0d72fb2@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:17:56 +0000
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
CC: <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <acme@...nel.org>,
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, <namhyung@...nel.org>,
<ak@...ux.intel.com>, <wcohen@...hat.com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
<ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<mark.rutland@....com>, <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] perf jevents: add support for arch recommended
events
On 21/12/2017 19:39, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> Hi Jirka,
>> >
>> > When you say reasonable size for x86, I ran a string duplication finder on
>> > the x86 JSONs and the results show a huge amount of duplication. Please
>> > check this:
>> > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/johnpgarry/68bc87e823ae2ce0f7b475b4e55e5795/raw/f4cea138999d8b34151b9586d733592e01774d7a/x86%2520JSON%2520duplication
>> >
>> > Extract:
>> > "Found a 65 line (311 tokens) duplication in the following files:
>> > Starting at line 100 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/ivybridge/ivb-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 100 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/ivytown/ivt-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 100 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/broadwell/bdw-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 100 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/skylakex/skx-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 76 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/jaketown/jkt-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 100 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/skylake/skl-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 76 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/sandybridge/snb-metrics.json
>> > Starting at line 100 of
>> > /linux/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/broadwellx/bdx-metrics.json"
>> >
Hi Jirka,
Sorry for the slow reply.
>> > Won't this all potentially have a big maintainence cost?
> as Andi said it's mostly just the disk space,
> which is not big deal
>
> I'm not doing JSON file updates, but I think having
> simple single dir for platform/cpu could save us some
> confusion in future
Understood. But for ARM, which has very standardised architecture
events, it is good to reduce this event duplication between platforms.
>
> however I won't oppose if you want to add this logic,
> but please:
> - use the list_head ;-)
Of course
> - leave the process_one_file function simple
> and separate the level0 processing
ok, this is how it should look already, albeit a couple of
process_one_file() modifications. I'll re-check this.
> - you are using 'EventCode' as an unique ID to find
> the base, but it's not unique for x86, you'll need
> to add some other ID scheme that fits to all archs
Right, so you mentioned earlier using a new keyword token to identify
whether we use the standard event, so we can go his way - ok?
I would also like to mention at this point why I did the event
pre-processing in jevents, and not a separate script:
- current build does not transverse the arch tree
- tree transversal for JSON processing is done in jevents
- a script would mean derived objects, which means:
- makefile changes for derived objects
- jevents would have to deal with derived objects
- jevents already has support for JSON processing
The advantage of using a script is that we keep the JSON processing in
jevents simple.
All the best,
John
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists