Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" | From | Taeung Song <> | Date | Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:45:44 +0900 |
| |
Sorry for late reply, Namhyung
On 10/25/2016 01:37 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Taeung, > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:10:24PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote: >> Hi, Namhyung and Arnaldo :) >> >> On 10/24/2016 02:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: >>> 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)? >>> >> >> Is related this link with what you said ? >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/495 > > Yep, that kind of thing. > >> >> Yes, the config patchset would be need to be updated. >> Because the config patchset which has 'write' feature >> don't use a recent 'struct perf_config_set' so I should change it >> to use 'perf_config_set' like show_config() of builtin-config.c:36. >> >> Do you need write support of perf-config command ? >> If this feature is more necessary than a recent patchset about default >> config array https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/17, >> I'd remake config patchset for getting and setting features first. :) > > What I need is a way to add a config item with specific value. Maybe > I can just append a line into a config file, but it needs to check > possible conflict somehow. So I think it needs to process existing > config items properly and update with the new value. >
I got it. Understood what you said! I'll send a patchset for this. :)
Thanks, Taeung
| |