On 02/02/15 19:30, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:56:09PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Jiri and Adrian,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>
>> Why not make it the
On 02/02/15 19:30, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:56:09PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Jiri and Adrian,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
Why not make it the same as all the
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:56:09PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Jiri and Adrian,
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find
Hi Jiri and Adrian,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> >>
>> >> Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find the start and
>> >> size
>> >> via the index? And then just lump all the data
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
> >>
> >> Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find the start and
> >> size
> >> via the index? And then just lump all the data together?
> >
> > thats what I suggested
>
> No, I meant really lump it all
On 02/02/15 12:05, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
> but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
>
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>> but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
> >>>
> >>> currently it's:
> >>>
> >>>
On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>> but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
>>>
>>> currently it's:
>>>
>>> struct perf_file_header {
>>> u64 magic;
>>>
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
> > but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
> >
> > currently it's:
> >
> > struct perf_file_header {
> > u64 magic;
> > u64 size;
On 01/02/15 20:06, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:06:55PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> The new --index option will create indexed data file which can be
>> processed by multiple threads parallelly. It saves meta event and
>> sample data in separate files and merges them with an
On 02/02/15 12:05, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
currently it's:
On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
currently it's:
struct perf_file_header {
u64 magic;
u64
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find the start and
size
via the index? And then just lump all the data together?
thats what I suggested
No, I meant really lump it all together. i.e.
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 02/02/15 11:15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
currently it's:
struct perf_file_header {
Hi Jiri and Adrian,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find the start and
size
via the index? And then just lump all the data
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:56:09PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Jiri and Adrian,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
Why not make it the same as all the other data. i.e. find the
On 01/02/15 20:06, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:06:55PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
The new --index option will create indexed data file which can be
processed by multiple threads parallelly. It saves meta event and
sample data in separate files and merges them with an index
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
SNIP
but how about bump up the header version for this feature? ;-)
currently it's:
struct perf_file_header {
u64 magic;
u64 size;
u64
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:06:55PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> The new --index option will create indexed data file which can be
> processed by multiple threads parallelly. It saves meta event and
> sample data in separate files and merges them with an index table.
>
> To build an index table,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:06:55PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
The new --index option will create indexed data file which can be
processed by multiple threads parallelly. It saves meta event and
sample data in separate files and merges them with an index table.
To build an index table, it
The new --index option will create indexed data file which can be
processed by multiple threads parallelly. It saves meta event and
sample data in separate files and merges them with an index table.
To build an index table, it needs to know exact offsets and sizes for
each sample data. However
The new --index option will create indexed data file which can be
processed by multiple threads parallelly. It saves meta event and
sample data in separate files and merges them with an index table.
To build an index table, it needs to know exact offsets and sizes for
each sample data. However
22 matches
Mail list logo
