[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJGifgASdDD7T8Xc@krava>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 21:37:34 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
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
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:28:33PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> 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.
sure when you know that cpu_core/cpu_atom are hybrid pmus ;-)
and I guess other arch will come with other names
jirka
>
> IMHO.
>
> - Arnaldo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists