From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753091AbbCWXmV (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:42:21 -0400 Received: from LGEMRELSE6Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.121]:47920 "EHLO lgemrelse6q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751980AbbCWXmU (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:42:20 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.220.203 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:35:08 +0900 From: Namhyung Kim To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Olsa , LKML , David Ahern , Minchan Kim , Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf kmem: Print big numbers using thousands' group Message-ID: <20150323233508.GG2782@sejong> References: <1427092244-22764-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> <1427092244-22764-2-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> <20150323140838.GU16485@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150323140838.GU16485@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnaldo, On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:08:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 03:30:40PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > Like perf stat, this makes easy to read the numbers on stat like below: > > > > # perf kmem stat > > > > SUMMARY > > ======= > > Total bytes requested: 9,770,900 > > Total bytes allocated: 9,782,712 > > Total bytes wasted on internal fragmentation: 11,812 > > Internal fragmentation: 0.120744% > > Cross CPU allocations: 74/152,819 > > > > Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim > > static void print_result(struct perf_session *session) > > @@ -706,6 +707,8 @@ int cmd_kmem(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix __maybe_unused) > > symbol__init(&session->header.env); > > > > if (!strcmp(argv[0], "stat")) { > > + setlocale(LC_ALL, ""); > > + > > Applying, but I think it is better to have this call in perf's main() > routine, to avoid repeating it in each tool, as 'builtin-stat' already > does this, but as this affects all tools, some further testing is > needed, I think, or does anyone see any problem with that? I don't see any explicit problem with it, but as its effect can be subtle I agree that we need further testing.. Thanks, Namhyung