[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <218f9d7c-135a-16a2-3585-4b13d2d39526@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 10:16:13 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, swapnil.sapkal@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, bristot@...hat.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
james.clark@....com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, gautham.shenoy@....com,
kprateek.nayak@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, yangjihong@...edance.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
santosh.shukla@....com, ananth.narayan@....com, sandipan.das@....com,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] perf sched: Introduce schedstat tool
>>>> USAGE
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> # perf sched schedstat record
>>>> # perf sched schedstat report
>>>
>>> Hmm. I think we can remove the duplication in 'sched'. :)
>>
>> You mean `perf sched stat record/report` ?
>>
>>> Given you are thinking of taskstat, how about making it
>>> 'cpustat' instead?
>>
>> Sure. How about:
>>
>> # perf sched stat --cpu --task record
>
> If you plan to support both cpu and task at the same time,
> then I'm ok with this. But if they're mutually exclusive, then
> probably you want to have them as sub-commands.
Sure, will think about it while preparing next version.
Thanks,
Ravi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists