On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:03:32AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:12:14 -0500, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I was thinking having config files (global and arch specific) > >> comming with perf having predefined formulas. > > > > All the more reason to not mention the file name or really any source > > for the definition of the formula in the name, > > > > > >> 1) -e 'ratio/branch-rate/' # special event class > >> 2) -e 'ratio-branch-rate' # 'ratio-' prefix > >> 3) -e cpu/branch-rate/ # handled like aliases, ratio name would need > >> to be unique > >> ... ? > > > > I think 3 is the most extensible. Perhaps use the syntax used in > > other places. We have these :u suffixes etc. Perhaps have :r or :R > > or whatever. > > I don't think it's a good idea. The ':r' syntax is for modifiers to the > existing events so it doesn't match to this case IMHO. > > I prefer a special event class like 1 since it's possible to include > non-cpu events to a ratio/formular. In that case, using 'cpu' in the > PMU name can be misleading. > > > > > Given the other comments, we might want to avoid right away "ratio". > > If the mechanism is generalized it could be used to express "counter1 > > - counter2" for events which cannot be expressed with a single counter > > but are not really ratios. > > Agreed. Looks like "formular" is better.
agreed, I think I wouldn't touch modifiers for this also, 'ratio' is not good choice, formula seems better jirka -- 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/
