On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 01:04:34PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Em Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 05:28:49PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > >> Em Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:45:46AM -0800, Stephane Eranian escreveu: > >> > Otherwise, I tested what you have written so far and it works. > > > >> So I take that as a Tested-by: Stephane and will apply the patches, Jiri > >> can continue working on these other aspects, right? > > > > I also added this for the casual reader to get up to speed more quickly, > > please check that it makes sense. > > > > Committer note: > > > > When we use -c or a period=N term in the event definition, then we don't > > need to ask the kernel, via perf_event_attr.sample_type |= > > PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD, to put the event period in each sample, as we know > > it already, it is in perf_event_attr.sample_period. > > > Not quite. It depends on how each event is setup. I can mix & match period > and frequency. The PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD can be dropped only if all the > events use a fixed period either via period=N or -c.
I think you can have both period and freq based event in one session if that's your concern..? what would be the problem? jirka > I hope that perf report can deal with config mixing period and fixed > mode correctly.