Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, tool: Add new event group management

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Em Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:56:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > 
> > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Em Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > > > > I would much prefer a syntax that's more natural but requires 
> > > > > > quoting than one that's quirky and tailor made to avoid 
> > > > > > whatever current bash does. For one, there's other shells out 
> > > > > > there that might have different quoting needs and bash is of 
> > > > > > course free to extend its syntax.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, they are unlikely to extend to '+', it would break a 
> > > > > boatload of scripts I suspect.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the question would be, is a+b+c as event grouping a natural 
> > > > > syntax? If not then lets use a quoted one that is.
> > > > 
> > > >    -e groupname=event1,event2,event3
> > > > 
> > > > Seems intuitive, no?
> > > 
> > > Hm, if there's no use for 'groupname' later on then it's a 
> > > needlessly unspecified dimension. If this variant is picked then 
> > > I'd suggest to make it a fixed:
> > > 
> > >   -e group=event1,event2,event3
> > > 
> > > kind of thing instead.
> > 
> > Jiri mentioned a use for the group name, no?
> 
> Only for perf stat output, right?
> 

right.. hm, using it in perf report would need to have it
stored in the data file.. not sure thats worth the effort

maybe let's start with 'group:mod=' and we can add later something
like 'group/name:mod=' if there's need to see group name in output

I think it's better to have one event syntax for all commands

jirka