Em Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:37:11PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:27:34AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:52:35AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > >> Similar to what I get if I do instead: > > > >> $ perf record -e '{branches,branches,branches,branches}' my_test > > > >> $ perf report --group > > > >> > > > >> But here, I would have to ensure all events fits in a group to allow > > > >> the reporting > > > >> I want. So that would limit me to 4 events. > > > >> > > > >> I think perf report --group should work regardless of how the events > > > >> were grouped. > > > >> Is there already a way to work around this? > > > > > > > > no workaround.. please try attached patch, it seems > > > > to work for what you described > > > > > > > Works for me. That's great! > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Tested-By: Stephane Eranian <eran...@google.com> > > > > thanks, full patch attached > > > > jirka > > Humm, its a nice hack, but it would be even better if it didn't showed > it as if it was really a group: > > Samples: 20 of event 'anon group { cycles, instructions }', Event count > (approx.): 4712980 > > It would be better to instead add another condition to the evlist that > would trigger the view with all the examples... > > I'm applying it anyway, as it is useful, but would be nice to have the > same output except for that header, that should read instead: > > Samples: 20 of non grouped events: cycles, instructions, Event count > (approx.): 4712980
Till then, that documentation hunk should help understanding this issue. :-) - Arnaldo