Re: [RFC v2 3/5] perf jevents: Add support for parsing perchip/percore events

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 05:53:12PM +0530, Kajol Jain wrote:
> Added the "PerChip" field  in enum so that perf knows they are
> per chip events.
> 
> Added the "PerCore" field in enum so that perf knows they are
> per core events and add these fields to pmu_event structure.
> 
> Similar to the way we had "PerPkg field
> to specify perpkg events.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c    | 8 +++++++-
>  tools/perf/pmu-events/pmu-events.h | 4 +++-
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
> index b2f59f0af63d..1f65047db000 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
> @@ -54,13 +54,19 @@ int verbose;
>  char *prog;
>  
>  enum aggr_mode_class {
> -	PerPkg = 1
> +	PerChip = 0,

is there a reason for the values? just wonder if it's wise to have PerChip == 0,
and why you would not continue with forward when PerPkg is 1

jirka

> +	PerPkg = 1,
> +	PerCore = 2
>  };
>  

SNIP