On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:34:45PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Hi, > > One thing I realized while testing is that we cannot simply add the > unit printout like that. > This may break all the scripts people may have written to parse the > output of perf stat.
isn't it what the -x output is meant for? perf stat -x, ... 1.738605,task-clock 367,context-switches 0,cpu-migrations 272,page-faults 6722006,cycles 2592661,stalled-cycles-frontend 1935855,stalled-cycles-backend 4324013,instructions 823229,branches 11192,branch-misses > I think we need to make the display of the unit optional. If I do: > $ perf stat -e cycles ls > > The output should remain as it was before and not show: > $ perf stat -e cycles ls > 22782847475 ? cycles maybe we should display just space ' ' instead of the '?' ...seems confusing > > So I think we need a --show-unit option. It would be off by default. > Of course doing this causes a mess with the current code because > of all the various printf() in builtin-stat.c but I think it is better for > the end user. > > Any opinion? I haven't checked by I think we changed the default perf stat output in the past without any fuzz maybe just keep the -x output or add the unit to the end of the line jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
