[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7chSL5_OmWMoM8ya-6Pm3rptT+GQqXDAYPnb-nmL1cVXYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:55:09 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>,
Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] perf evsel: Fallback to task-clock when not system wide
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:02 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 4:04 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > When the cycles event isn't available evsel will fallback to the
> > cpu-clock software event. task-clock is similar to cpu-clock but only
> > runs when the process is running. Falling back to cpu-clock when not
> > system wide leads to confusion, by falling back to task-clock it is
> > hoped the confusion is less.
> >
> > Pass the target to determine if task-clock is more appropriate. Update
> > a nearby comment and debug string for the change.
> >
> > ---
> > v2. Use target__has_cpu as suggested by Namhyung.
> > https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1556/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists