On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:25:29PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On 3/16/2021 7:03 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:07:31PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > goto try_again;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + if (errno == EINVAL && perf_pmu__hybrid_exist())
> > > + evlist__warn_hybrid_group(evlist);
> > > rc = -errno;
> > > evsel__open_strerror(pos, &opts->target, errno,
> > > msg, sizeof(msg));
> > > ui__error("%s\n", msg);
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > > index 7a732508b2b4..6f780a039db0 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> > > @@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static void evlist__check_cpu_maps(struct evlist
> > > *evlist)
> > > struct evsel *evsel, *pos, *leader;
> > > char buf[1024];
> > > + if (evlist__hybrid_exist(evlist))
> > > + return;
> >
> > this should be in separate patch and explained
> >
>
> Now I have another idea. If a group consists of atom events and core events,
> we still follow current disabling group solution?
>
> I mean removing following code:
>
> if (evlist__hybrid_exist(evlist))
> return;
>
> evlist__check_cpu_maps then continues running and disabling the group. But
> also report with a warning that says "WARNING: Group has events from
> different hybrid PMUs".
>
> Do you like this way?
I'm not sure I follow completely.. would be best over the code
jirka
