[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ebc8e57e-1584-5f47-48d8-3bc38497799b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:25:16 -0400
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/19] perf stat: Cleanup counter aggregation (v1)
On 10/10/2022 10:35 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Current perf stat code is somewhat hard to follow since it handles
> many combinations of PMUs/events for given display and aggregation
> options. This is my attempt to clean it up a little. ;-)
My main concern would be subtle regressions since there are so many
different combinations and way to travel through the code, and a lot of
things are not covered by unit tests. When I worked on the code it was
difficult to keep it all working. I assume you have some way to
enumerate them all and tested that the output is identical?
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists