Hi Ingo, On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:55:57 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I gave it some quick testing and after fixing a trivial merge conflict > in tools/lib/lockdep/Makefile all seems to be working fine.
Thanks for testing! > > But while looking at it I remembered one of my old UI complains about > perf top and report, the hard to read nature of: > > Event count (approx.): 226958779 > > the values displayed are typically way too large to be easily human > readable. More importantly, they are also nonsensical! That we have a > sampling interval and can sum up all the intervals sampled has very > little meaning to the overwhelming majority of humans looking at the > data. > > And printing that just spams the visual field and confuses people. > > People care about the quality and speed of sampling itself, not > directly the interval of sampling (which will often be variable with > auto-freq sampling). You meant 'period' by 'interval', right? There's --show-total-period option (should be equivalent to -F period later) in perf report, so there might be people want to see the numbers IMHO. > > So instead of: > > Samples: 42K of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 226958779 > > How about only printing this in 'perf top' and 'perf report': > > Captured 42.1K 'cycles' event samples > > Note the extra decimal (which helps monitor smaller changes as well), > and note the different wording. > > Thoughts? Well, I'm okay to add the extra decimal, but it seems that it only makes sense when the unit is 'K'.. And I think it might be worth adding filtered sample count as well if filtering is enabled something like: Captured 13.2K/42.1K 'cycles' event samples Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
