Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:15:12 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] perf record: add time-of-day option |
| |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:23:01AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 06/17/2011 08:14 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > So I feel uncomfortable with this tod_sample_type hack. I think we can't really continue > > with this fixed sample_type per session given the kind of hacks that involves. > > > > One thing we could do is to split session->sample_type into an array with one sample > > type per event type (hardware, breakpoint, software, tracepoint). > > > > And then each builtin tool can provide their constraints on top of these values: > > > > - builtin-report wants sample_type[HARDWARE] == sample_type[SOFTWARE] == sample_type[TRACEPOINT] == sample_type[BREAKPOINT] > > although that may be tunable by the time but we can start with that. > > - builtin-script has no specific constraints, except that sample_type[i] meets what the user passed as a parameter > > - etc.. > > > > Constraints can probably default to sample_type[i] == sample_type[i+1] to mimic the current behaviour. Then tools > > can override that. > > > > What do you think? > > I started working on sample_type refactoring right after sending this > patchset (though I got sidetracked). Each evsel in the list has a > perf_attr struct which has a sample_type. Why not use that which allows > events to have their own sample type - versus a type per event type?
This can make sense, I can figure out some cases where such granularity can be useful. Branch recording doesn't care about recording period for example I think.
> > I'll see if I can get back to it in the next few days and get a better > idea of the pain involved with the refactoring.
Thanks a lot :)
| |