Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:37:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:23PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:23PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> >
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > - dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
>
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > - dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > - dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
> >@sample_id values.
>
> Hmm, this would force people to use sample_id; which
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:56:09PM +, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > So I changed it slightly to the below; changes are:
> >
> > - record 'lost' events to all set bits; after all we really do not
> >know which event this sample belonged to, only logging to the first
> >set bit
>
>
> So I changed it slightly to the below; changes are:
>
> - record 'lost' events to all set bits; after all we really do not
>know which event this sample belonged to, only logging to the first
>set bit seems 'wrong'.
If so, the same dropped sample will be count multiple times.
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> - dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
>@sample_id values.
Hmm, this would force people to use sample_id; which in general is a
good idea, but should we really force that on people?
Acme?
--
So I changed it slightly to the below; changes are:
- record 'lost' events to all set bits; after all we really do not
know which event this sample belonged to, only logging to the first
set bit seems 'wrong'.
- dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:37:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:23PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
@sample_id values.
Hmm, this would force people to use sample_id; which in general is a
good idea, but should we really force that on people?
Acme?
--
To
So I changed it slightly to the below; changes are:
- record 'lost' events to all set bits; after all we really do not
know which event this sample belonged to, only logging to the first
set bit seems 'wrong'.
- dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:56:09PM +, Liang, Kan wrote:
So I changed it slightly to the below; changes are:
- record 'lost' events to all set bits; after all we really do not
know which event this sample belonged to, only logging to the first
set bit seems 'wrong'.
So I changed it slightly to the below; changes are:
- record 'lost' events to all set bits; after all we really do not
know which event this sample belonged to, only logging to the first
set bit seems 'wrong'.
If so, the same dropped sample will be count multiple times. It's
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
@sample_id values.
Hmm, this would force people to use sample_id; which in
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- dropped
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:23PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
On
20 matches
Mail list logo
