From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Olsa Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/5] perf jevents: Add support for parsing perchip/percore events Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:55:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20200712185523.GA147742@krava> References: <20200707122314.624400-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> <20200707122314.624400-4-kjain@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200707122314.624400-4-kjain@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kajol Jain Cc: acme@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, pc@us.ibm.com, namhyung@kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, yao.jin@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, irogers@google.com, maddy@linux.ibm.com, ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com, anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kan.liang@linux.intel.com, nasastry@in.ibm.com List-Id: linux-perf-users.vger.kernel.org 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 > --- > 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