Re: [PATCH 2/3 -tip] perf_counter tools: Add support to set of multiple events in one shot

Ingo Molnar
2009-06-30T09:58:07Z

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 05:57 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > The above patterns i suggested _already cover_ 'multiple events'.
> >
> > We might define further aliases like:
> >
> > all := "*"
> > all-sw := "sw-*"
> >
> > but it should all be in terms of patterns and regular
> > expressions, not via some hardcoded special-case thing as your
> > posted patches did.
> >
>
> It seems to me very confusing and needs lot of book-keeping and
> need to rewrite whole tools/perf/util/parse-events.c because :
>
> * means all perf_event_types :
> PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
> PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE,
> PERF_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
> PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE,
> PERF_TYPE_RAW
>
> hw-* means all hardware events :
> PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
> PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE,
> PERF_TYPE_RAW
>
> sw-* means all software events :
> PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE,
> PERF_TYPE_TRACEPOINT
>
> *cache* means all cache based events :
> PERF_COUNT_CACHE_REFERENCES, /* Generalized H/W */
> PERF_COUNT_CACHE_MISSES, /* Generalized H/W */
> PERF_TYPE_HW_CACHE, /* Generalized Cache */
>
> *write* means all write based events :
> (L1D, WRITE, ACCESS),
> (L1D, WRITE, MISS),
> (LL, WRITE, ACCESS),
> (LL, WRITE, MISS),
> (DTLB, WRITE, ACCESS),
> (DTLB, WRITE, MISS)
>
> Please let me know why it looks complex to me, is it really
> complex or I am going in wrong direction.

It would certainly need some reorganization of the code but the end
result would be more flexible and other places could use it too, for
example:

perf test -e hw-*

would test all (known) hardware counters.

Ingo