On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:23 AM Ian Rogers <irog...@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:29 AM Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:04:24PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > Large metrics such as Branch_Misprediction_Cost_SMT on x86 broadwell > > > need more space. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irog...@google.com> > > > --- > > > tools/perf/util/expr.h | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/expr.h b/tools/perf/util/expr.h > > > index 0938ad166ece..4938bfc608b7 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/expr.h > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/expr.h > > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ > > > #ifndef PARSE_CTX_H > > > #define PARSE_CTX_H 1 > > > > > > -#define EXPR_MAX_OTHER 20 > > > +#define EXPR_MAX_OTHER 64 > > > #define MAX_PARSE_ID EXPR_MAX_OTHER > > > > > > struct expr_parse_id { > > > -- > > > 2.26.2.303.gf8c07b1a785-goog > > > > > > > ok, and we should probably start to think about what Andi suggested > > in here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200224210308.gq160...@tassilo.jf.intel.com/ > > Agreed, a hash table would make sense. This was the smallest value > that would let the test on x86 pass.
Fwiw, I have done this based on tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.h in CLs following on from this patch set. I'm holding off sending so I can rebase on acme's perf/next when the CLs acked by Jirka land: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200503221650.GA1916255@krava/ The libbpf dependency for a hashmap is counter intuitive, so maybe there's something better to do there. Thanks, Ian > Thanks, > Ian > > > jirka > >