[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJGgYSXcJbZ2n3H3@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 16:28:33 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, jolsa@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] perf header: Support HYBRID_TOPOLOGY feature
Em Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:56:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:46:01PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > It would be useful to let user know the hybrid topology.
> > Adding HYBRID_TOPOLOGY feature in header to indicate the
> > core cpus and the atom cpus.
> > With this patch,
> > For the perf.data generated on hybrid platform,
> > reports the hybrid cpu list.
> > root@...pl-adl-s-2:~# perf report --header-only -I
> > ...
> > # cpu_core cpu list : 0-15
> > # cpu_atom cpu list : 16-23
> hum, should we print 'hybrid:' or something to make
> sure its not confused with something else? like
> # hybrid cpu_core cpu list : 0-15
> # hybrid cpu_atom cpu list : 16-23
But this _core/_atom already got to be enough? I disagreed with that
naming, but neverthless having one or the other present in an output is
a clear mark of this hybrid topology.
I.e having that extra hybrid string that wouldn't add information to the
output.
IMHO.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists