> I'm guessing that those metric JSONs are human generated, so would be
> suitable; unlike the regular JSONs, which are automated.
The x86 metrics are auto generated too.
That's why you see the repetition.
-Andi
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The name could be a metric or an event, the logic for each is quite
>
> I would say collisions are unlikely. Event names follow quite structured
> patterns.
But across various architectures? I guess event names can be arbitrary.
In perftool-testsuite, I
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 09:48:21AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:57:59PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > The name could be a metric or an event, the logic for each is quite
> >
> > I would say collisions are unlikely. Event names follow quite structured
> >
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 5:48 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
>
> Em Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:57:59PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > The name could be a metric or an event, the logic for each is quite
> >
> > I would say collisions are unlikely. Event names follow quite structured
> > patterns
Em Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:57:59PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > The name could be a metric or an event, the logic for each is quite
>
> I would say collisions are unlikely. Event names follow quite structured
> patterns.
And when introducing a new metric the build process can detect that
clash
Em Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:44:14PM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:25 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:47:10PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > this patchset is adding the support to reused metric in another
> > > metric. The metric needs to be referenced by
On 26/06/2020 20:47, Jiri Olsa wrote:
hi,
this patchset is adding the support to reused metric in another
metric. The metric needs to be referenced by 'metric:' prefix.
I notice that there is much repetition in the x86 metric JSONs between CPUs.
So I know it's not the same as what you propose
> The name could be a metric or an event, the logic for each is quite
I would say collisions are unlikely. Event names follow quite structured
patterns.
> different. You could look up an event and when it fails assume it was
> a metric, but I like the simplicity of this approach.
I don't think i
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:25 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:47:10PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > hi,
> > this patchset is adding the support to reused metric in another
> > metric. The metric needs to be referenced by 'metric:' prefix.
>
> Why is the prefix needed?
>
> Could ju
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:47:10PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> hi,
> this patchset is adding the support to reused metric in another
> metric. The metric needs to be referenced by 'metric:' prefix.
Why is the prefix needed?
Could just look it up without prefix.
-Andi
hi,
this patchset is adding the support to reused metric in another
metric. The metric needs to be referenced by 'metric:' prefix.
For example, to define IPC by using CPI with change like:
"BriefDescription": "Instructions Per Cycle (per Logical Processor)",
- "MetricExpr": "INST
11 matches
Mail list logo
