[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200627124821.GF29008@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:48:21 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...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
Em Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:57:59PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > 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.
And when introducing a new metric the build process can detect that
clash and fail.
> > 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.
Agreed.
> > 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.
Ditto.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists