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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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