Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:07:25 +0100 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, tool: Add new event group management |
| |
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Em Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:56:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > > > > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Em Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > > > > I would much prefer a syntax that's more natural but requires > > > > > > quoting than one that's quirky and tailor made to avoid > > > > > > whatever current bash does. For one, there's other shells out > > > > > > there that might have different quoting needs and bash is of > > > > > > course free to extend its syntax. > > > > > > > > > > Well, they are unlikely to extend to '+', it would break a > > > > > boatload of scripts I suspect. > > > > > > > > > > So the question would be, is a+b+c as event grouping a natural > > > > > syntax? If not then lets use a quoted one that is. > > > > > > > > -e groupname=event1,event2,event3 > > > > > > > > Seems intuitive, no? > > > > > > Hm, if there's no use for 'groupname' later on then it's a > > > needlessly unspecified dimension. If this variant is picked then > > > I'd suggest to make it a fixed: > > > > > > -e group=event1,event2,event3 > > > > > > kind of thing instead. > > > > Jiri mentioned a use for the group name, no? > > Only for perf stat output, right? >
right.. hm, using it in perf report would need to have it stored in the data file.. not sure thats worth the effort
maybe let's start with 'group:mod=' and we can add later something like 'group/name:mod=' if there's need to see group name in output
I think it's better to have one event syntax for all commands
jirka
| |