On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:23:01AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 06/17/2011 08:14 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > So I feel uncomfortable with this tod_sample_type hack. I think we can't > > really continue > > with this fixed sample_type per session given the kind of hacks that > > involves. > > > > One thing we could do is to split session->sample_type into an array with > > one sample > > type per event type (hardware, breakpoint, software, tracepoint). > > > > And then each builtin tool can provide their constraints on top of these > > values: > > > > - builtin-report wants sample_type[HARDWARE] == sample_type[SOFTWARE] == > > sample_type[TRACEPOINT] == sample_type[BREAKPOINT] > > although that may be tunable by the time but we can start with that. > > - builtin-script has no specific constraints, except that sample_type[i] > > meets what the user passed as a parameter > > - etc.. > > > > Constraints can probably default to sample_type[i] == sample_type[i+1] to > > mimic the current behaviour. Then tools > > can override that. > > > > What do you think? > > I started working on sample_type refactoring right after sending this > patchset (though I got sidetracked). Each evsel in the list has a > perf_attr struct which has a sample_type. Why not use that which allows > events to have their own sample type - versus a type per event type?
This can make sense, I can figure out some cases where such granularity can be useful. Branch recording doesn't care about recording period for example I think. > > I'll see if I can get back to it in the next few days and get a better > idea of the pain involved with the refactoring. Thanks a lot :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
