From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751107AbdBTVXL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:23:11 -0500
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:56578 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750858AbdBTVXK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:23:10 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:22:54 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] perf stat: Add -a as a default target
Message-ID: <20170220212254.GC4071@kernel.org>
References: <1487340058-10496-5-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <20170217142747.GD4109@kernel.org>
 <20170217143327.GA11281@krava>
 <20170217144128.GF4109@kernel.org>
 <20170217170034.GB15389@krava>
 <F05C67E5-96B5-4305-992C-166D068520E4@alien8.de>
 <20170218175225.5cylpqti7oluqehv@pd.tnic>
 <20170220071300.GA12002@krava>
 <20170220134433.GI4109@kernel.org>
 <20170220203149.yxietgdzi5lxdk5n@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170220203149.yxietgdzi5lxdk5n@pd.tnic>
X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Em Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:31:49PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> Btw, I received your mail just now - probably greylisting...
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:44:33AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Isn't this confusing, i.e. people runnin 'tool workload' can be lead to
> > think that the events reported took place just when the workload was
> > running, i.e. on the same cpu and while it was being scheduled?
> 
> That's a good point.
> 
> > I understand the desire to avoid asking people to use -a, i.e. if it
> > only makes sense as system wide, hey, do it as system wide, but can't
> > this be confusing?
> 
> Well, I did
> 
> tool workload
> 
> and it said <not supported>. Now, if I'm the only one to stare puzzled

Well, this one should be read (and written in the tool output as):

<not supported in workload only mode, try system wide, using -a>

> at this and wonder why it says "not supported", then sure, I know now
> that I should use -a.
> 
> But if other users are as confused as me, you probably want to tell them
> to try -a too, no?
> 
> IOW, we probably could extend my other patch which says that people
> should try to disable the HW NMI watchdog to say "try using -a for
> uncore-only events" when it detects <not supported>.

Right, the ENOTSUPP in this case needs to be properly expanded into
something meaningful, as suggested above.

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.