[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200423140249.GA1199027@krava>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:02:49 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Haiyan Song <haiyanx.song@...el.com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Paul Clarke <pc@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] perf metric fixes and test
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:44:24PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On 4/23/2020 7:28 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:04:19PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > Add a test that all perf metrics (for your architecture) are
> > > parsable. Fix bugs in the expr parser and in x86 metrics. Untested on
> > > architectures other than x86.
> > >
> > > v2 adds Fixes tags to commit messages for when broken metrics were
> > > first added. Adds a debug warning for division by zero in expr, and
> > > adds a workaround for id values in the expr test necessary for
> > > powerpc. It also fixes broken power8 and power9 metrics.
> >
> > looks good to me
> >
> > Jin Yao, is there a metric that's not working for you with this patchset
> > applied?
> >
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> >
>
> Let me look for a CLX for testing, but maybe need some time.
>
> BTW, suppose this patchset can work well, does it mean we will change the
> json file format in future?
>
> For example,
>
> before:
> cha@...nt\\=0x36\\\\\\
>
> after:
> cha@...nt\\=0x36\\
>
> "\\\\" are removed.
>
> If so, we need to change our event generation script.
ok, maybe I got the wrong idea that the extra \\\\ were just
superfluous, what was the actual error there? and what's the
reason for that many '\' in there?
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists