Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:31:37 +0100 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/9] perf: Adding sysfs group format attribute for pmu device |
| |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 14:13 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > Are you are suggesting that a single event could use multiple groups > > > because they may share some common fields, such as the event code? If > > > so, I think that might be confusing. I think it would be better to > > > have every group fully lay out the bits in the config{,1,2} fields so > > > that you only need to specify one group per event, even if that leads to > > > some redundancy (e.g. group1..n all have an eventcode field.) > > > > ok, it'd be the 'cpu::group1/config=1,config1=2,config2=3/u' then.. > > > > but let's see what Peter thinks about this, since he first suggested > > to 'fix' this by having separate pmu drivers.. not format groups :) > > I'm not convinced we need the whole grouping thing. Even x86 might have > overlapping definitions, even for a single PMU (config1 contents will > radically differ depending on the actual events used for instance).
well, I think let's go with what we have now, and see if need/want to care about format groups later after we use it for a while..
since the "cpu/..../" syntax is new interface, there should be no problem to change it
> > All we should do is warn the user when overlapping masks are used in a > single event definition and other than that just do as they tell us.
that should be no problem.. do you want it in to take this.. ooor is later ok ;)
jirka
> > PMUs can always do an informal namespace thing if really needed, eg. by > using a consistent prefix. >
| |