On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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? > My understanding was that perf only support configs where all events have the same attr.sample_type. With frequency mode, you'd want the period recorded in some cases.
> jirka > >> I hope that perf report can deal with config mixing period and fixed >> mode correctly.
