[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200626215759.GG818054@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:57:59 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>,
Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
"Paul A. Clarke" <pc@...ibm.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] perf tools: Add support to reuse metric
> The name could be a metric or an event, the logic for each is quite
I would say collisions are unlikely. Event names follow quite structured
patterns.
> different. You could look up an event and when it fails assume it was
> a metric, but I like the simplicity of this approach.
I don't think it's simpler for the user.
> Maybe this
> change could be adopted more widely with something like "perf stat -e
> metric:IPC -a -I 1000" rather than the current "perf stat -M IPC -a -I
> 1000".
I thought about just adding metrics to -e, without metric: of course.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists