On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:25:20PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Jiri Olsa [jo...@redhat.com] wrote: > | On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:27:15PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > | > From: Cody P Schafer <c...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > | > > | > Enable event specification like: > | > > | > pmu/event_name,param1=0x1,param2=0x4/ > | > > | > Assuming that > | > > | > /sys/bus/event_source/devices/pmu/events/event_name > | > > | > Contains something like > | > > | > param2=foo,bar=1,param1=baz > | > | hum, so what happened to the '?' ... AFAIU from out last discussion, > | you wanted to mark terms which are mandatory and user must provide > | values for them.. and I thought the decision was to have following > | alias record: > | > | $ cat /sys/bus/event_source/devices/pmu/events/event_name > | param2=?,bar=1,param1=? > | > | while perf would scream if any of param1/2 wasnt filled like for: > | pmu/event_name,param1=0x1/ > > Sorry, I meant to make perf list consistent with sysfs. > > Consider these two sysfs entries: > > $ cat HPM_0THRD_NON_IDLE_CCYC__PHYS_CORE > domain=0x2,offset=0xe0,starting_index=core,lpar=0x0 > > $ cat HPM_0THRD_NON_IDLE_CCYC__VCPU_HOME_CORE > domain=0x3,offset=0xe0,starting_index=vcpu,lpar=sibling_guest_id > > In the first one, starting_index refers to a 'core' while in the second > it refers to a vcpu. This serves as a "hint" for the parameter's meaning. > > By replacing both with 'starting_index=?' we lose that hint. > > Should we fix both sysfs and 'perf list' to say > > starting_index=?core
Peter, Ingo, any opinions on this? Overall explanation is in here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141158688307356&w=2 thanks, jirka _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev