Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Oct 2016 01:37:49 +0900 | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" |
| |
Hi Taeung,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:10:24PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote: > Hi, Namhyung and Arnaldo :) > > On 10/24/2016 02:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > Hi Arnaldo, > > > > Sorry for late reply. > > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:35:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:53:57PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > > > Cc-ing perf maintainers, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:32:29AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > On 2016.10.07 at 13:22 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:51:18AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > > > On 2016.10.07 at 10:17 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:33:33PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > > > > > Scrolling down is broken when using "perf top --hierarchy". > > > > > > > > > When it starts up everything is OK and one can scroll up and down to all > > > > > > > > > entries. But as further and further new entries get added to the list, > > > > > > > > > scrolling down is blocked (at the position of the last entry that was > > > > > > > > > shown directly after startup). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think below patch will fix the problem. Please check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. It works fine now. Many thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good. Can I add your Tested-by then? > > > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll send a formal patch with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (And in the long run you should think of making "perf top --hierarchy" > > > > > the default for perf top, because it gives a much better (uncluttered) > > > > > overview of what is going on.) > > > > > > > > I think it's a matter of taste. Some people prefer to see the top > > > > single function or something (i.e. current behavior) while others > > > > prefer to see a higher-level view. > > > > > > > > But we can think again about the default at least for perf-top. I > > > > worried about changing default behavior because last time we did it > > > > for children mode many people complained about it. But I do think the > > > > hierarchy mode is useful for many people though. > > > > > > So, I think in such cases we could experiment with asking the user about > > > switching to the new mode by showing a popup message telling what it is > > > about, if the user says "yes, I want to try it" switch to it and if > > > another hotkey is pressed later, write what was chosen (yes, switch to > > > this new mode, no, I don't like it, don't pester me about it anymore) to > > > its ~/.perfconfig file so that next time it goes straight to this new > > > mode, else don't ask the user again and keep using whatever mode was > > > there already. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > I think it's a flexible way to set the default behavior while it seems > > like a little bit complicated for implementation. Also I think it's > > better to popup another dialog at the end and asks for comfirmation > > (but it might not be appropriate for --stdio). > > > > And to do that, we need to have a (programmable) way of dealing with > > the configs. > > > > Taeung, is there an update on your config patchset (especially for > > write support)? > > > > Is related this link with what you said ? > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/495
Yep, that kind of thing.
> > Yes, the config patchset would be need to be updated. > Because the config patchset which has 'write' feature > don't use a recent 'struct perf_config_set' so I should change it > to use 'perf_config_set' like show_config() of builtin-config.c:36. > > Do you need write support of perf-config command ? > If this feature is more necessary than a recent patchset about default > config array https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/17, > I'd remake config patchset for getting and setting features first. :)
What I need is a way to add a config item with specific value. Maybe I can just append a line into a config file, but it needs to check possible conflict somehow. So I think it needs to process existing config items properly and update with the new value.
Thanks, Namhyung
| |