Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 3/5] perf jevents: Add support for parsing perchip/percore events | From | kajoljain <> | Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:42:15 +0530 |
| |
On 7/13/20 12:25 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 05:53:12PM +0530, Kajol Jain wrote: >> Added the "PerChip" field in enum so that perf knows they are >> per chip events. >> >> Added the "PerCore" field in enum so that perf knows they are >> per core events and add these fields to pmu_event structure. >> >> Similar to the way we had "PerPkg field >> to specify perpkg events. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c | 8 +++++++- >> tools/perf/pmu-events/pmu-events.h | 4 +++- >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c >> index b2f59f0af63d..1f65047db000 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c >> @@ -54,13 +54,19 @@ int verbose; >> char *prog; >> >> enum aggr_mode_class { >> - PerPkg = 1 >> + PerChip = 0, > > is there a reason for the values? just wonder if it's wise to have PerChip == 0, > and why you would not continue with forward when PerPkg is 1
Hi Jiri, Yes, there is no reason for having particular values, It just added to get which parameter we are referring. I can sure continue it after Perpkg.
Thanks, Kajol Jain
> > jirka > >> + PerPkg = 1, >> + PerCore = 2 >> }; >> > > SNIP >
| |