lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/4] perf tool: Adding ratios support
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:03:32AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:12:14 -0500, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> I was thinking having config files (global and arch specific)
> >> comming with perf having predefined formulas.
> >
> > All the more reason to not mention the file name or really any source
> > for the definition of the formula in the name,
> >
> >
> >> 1) -e 'ratio/branch-rate/' # special event class
> >> 2) -e 'ratio-branch-rate' # 'ratio-' prefix
> >> 3) -e cpu/branch-rate/ # handled like aliases, ratio name would need to be unique
> >> ... ?
> >
> > I think 3 is the most extensible. Perhaps use the syntax used in
> > other places. We have these :u suffixes etc. Perhaps have :r or :R
> > or whatever.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea. The ':r' syntax is for modifiers to the
> existing events so it doesn't match to this case IMHO.
>
> I prefer a special event class like 1 since it's possible to include
> non-cpu events to a ratio/formular. In that case, using 'cpu' in the
> PMU name can be misleading.
>
> >
> > Given the other comments, we might want to avoid right away "ratio".
> > If the mechanism is generalized it could be used to express "counter1
> > - counter2" for events which cannot be expressed with a single counter
> > but are not really ratios.
>
> Agreed. Looks like "formular" is better.

agreed, I think I wouldn't touch modifiers for this
also, 'ratio' is not good choice, formula seems better

jirka


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-17 17:43    [W:0.399 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site