Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:11:22 +0900 | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" |
| |
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)?
Thanks, Namhyung
| |