Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf: jevents: Program to convert JSON file to C style file

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:59:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Andi,
> > 
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >> So we build tables of all models in the architecture, and choose
> > >> matching one when compiling perf, right?  Can't we do that when
> > >> building the tables?  IOW, why don't we check the VFM and discard
> > >> non-matching tables?  Those non-matching tables are also needed?
> > >
> > > We build it for all cpus in an architecture, not all architectures.
> > > So e.g. for an x86 binary power is not included, and vice versa.
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > > It always includes all CPUs for a given architecture, so it's possible
> > > to use the perf binary on other systems than just the one it was
> > > build on.
> > 
> > So it selects one at run-time not build-time, good.  But I worry about
> > the size of the intel tables.  How large are they?  Maybe we can make
> > it dynamic-loadable if needed..
> 
> just compiled Sukadev's new version with Andi's events list
> and stripped binary size is:
> 
> [jolsa@krava perf]$ ls -l perf
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 jolsa jolsa 2772640 May 28 13:49 perf
> 
> 
> while perf on Arnaldo's perf/core is:
> 
> [jolsa@krava perf]$ ls -l perf
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 jolsa jolsa 2334816 May 28 13:49 perf
> 
> seems not that bad

It's not bad at all.

Do you have a Git tree URI where I could take a look at its current state? A tree 
would be nice that has as many of these patches integrated as possible.

Thanks,

	Ingo