From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932590Ab1FQPPU (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:15:20 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:56947 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932538Ab1FQPPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=LpKNXxQpGWEeyhWotZQYZ0DSGmMJa8Bi7YRTk2h9etMClbR1Am7mfsytOpqsnKsZ0M TPlt1k47AEdZhktMRhfwbKQQVXu6fI5tc5i0eSELGv05mF/TxTVEUlfzUnL3cbPzV/i8 Jq73MqS0La0ICoDQfkRrutskpGkcDZp/DnS5U= Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:15:12 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: David Ahern Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@ghostprotocols.net, mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, paulus@samba.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] perf record: add time-of-day option Message-ID: <20110617151510.GG25197@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1307490806-24548-1-git-send-email-dsahern@gmail.com> <1307490964-24714-1-git-send-email-dsahern@gmail.com> <20110617141425.GD25197@somewhere.redhat.com> <4DFB6345.3080007@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DFB6345.3080007@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:23:01AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 06/17/2011 08:14 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > So I feel uncomfortable with this tod_sample_type hack. I think we can't really continue > > with this fixed sample_type per session given the kind of hacks that involves. > > > > One thing we could do is to split session->sample_type into an array with one sample > > type per event type (hardware, breakpoint, software, tracepoint). > > > > And then each builtin tool can provide their constraints on top of these values: > > > > - builtin-report wants sample_type[HARDWARE] == sample_type[SOFTWARE] == sample_type[TRACEPOINT] == sample_type[BREAKPOINT] > > although that may be tunable by the time but we can start with that. > > - builtin-script has no specific constraints, except that sample_type[i] meets what the user passed as a parameter > > - etc.. > > > > Constraints can probably default to sample_type[i] == sample_type[i+1] to mimic the current behaviour. Then tools > > can override that. > > > > What do you think? > > I started working on sample_type refactoring right after sending this > patchset (though I got sidetracked). Each evsel in the list has a > perf_attr struct which has a sample_type. Why not use that which allows > events to have their own sample type - versus a type per event type? This can make sense, I can figure out some cases where such granularity can be useful. Branch recording doesn't care about recording period for example I think. > > I'll see if I can get back to it in the next few days and get a better > idea of the pain involved with the refactoring. Thanks a lot :)