[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180223170210.GC7045@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:02:10 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, jolsa@...nel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kan.liang@...el.com,
yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Support to display the LBR data in tui
mode
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:29:06PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:25:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:35:58PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > > Unlike the perf report interactive annotate mode, the perf annotate
> > > doesn't display the LBR data.
>
> > > perf record -b ...
> > > perf annotate function
>
> > > It should show IPC/cycle, but it doesn't.
>
> > There is far more than IPC/cycle for the LBR data, so this Changelog is
> > misleading.
>
> > Also, I think that this patch goes the wrong way, we should reduce the
> > divergence of the various modes, not make it worse.
>
> Right, Peter, what would you think if I made --stdio use the same
> routines used to format the TUI, i.e. stdio would be equal to the TUI
> modulo de navigation/jump arrows, etc.
With the unification Jin Yao's patch would be the right thing anyways
-- it would magically work for stdio mode too. So it seems to me
merging the patch would be the right thing to do.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists