From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726B4CA9EB5 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCD92086D for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727585AbfJUG5A (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 02:57:00 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:15746 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727167AbfJUG47 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 02:56:59 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Oct 2019 23:56:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,322,1566889200"; d="scan'208";a="209381582" Received: from yjin15-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.196.71]) ([10.239.196.71]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2019 23:56:57 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] perf report: Sort by sampled cycles percent per block for stdio To: Jiri Olsa Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com References: <20191015053350.13909-1-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20191015053350.13909-4-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20191015084102.GA10951@krava> <6882f3ae-0f8d-5a01-7fd5-5b9f9c93f9ac@linux.intel.com> <20191016101543.GC15580@krava> <456b8e97-dc50-449c-9999-0bddef0e9c4c@linux.intel.com> <20191016125325.GA10222@krava> From: "Jin, Yao" Message-ID: <2a16a22e-5bdd-949b-480f-1c0956e13c14@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:56:57 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191016125325.GA10222@krava> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/16/2019 8:53 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 06:51:07PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: >> >> >> On 10/16/2019 6:15 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:53:18PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: >>> >>> SNIP >>> >>>>>> +static struct block_header_column{ >>>>>> + const char *name; >>>>>> + int width; >>>>>> +} block_columns[PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_MAX_INDEX] = { >>>>>> + [PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_TOTAL_CYCLES_COV] = { >>>>>> + .name = "Sampled Cycles%", >>>>>> + .width = 15, >>>>>> + }, >>>>>> + [PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_LBR_CYCLES] = { >>>>>> + .name = "Sampled Cycles", >>>>>> + .width = 14, >>>>>> + }, >>>>>> + [PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_CYCLES_PCT] = { >>>>>> + .name = "Avg Cycles%", >>>>>> + .width = 11, >>>>>> + }, >>>>>> + [PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_AVG_CYCLES] = { >>>>>> + .name = "Avg Cycles", >>>>>> + .width = 10, >>>>>> + }, >>>>>> + [PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_RANGE] = { >>>>>> + .name = "[Program Block Range]", >>>>>> + .width = 70, >>>>>> + }, >>>>>> + [PERF_HPP_REPORT__BLOCK_DSO] = { >>>>>> + .name = "Shared Object", >>>>>> + .width = 20, >>>>>> + } >>>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> so we already have support for multiple columns, >>>>> why don't you add those as 'struct sort_entry' objects? >>>>> >>>> >>>> For 'struct sort_entry' objects, do you mean I should reuse the "sort_dso" >>>> which has been implemented yet in util/sort.c? >>>> >>>> For other columns, it looks we can't reuse the existing sort_entry objects. >>> >>> I did not mean reuse, just add new sort entries >>> to current sort framework >>> >> >> Does it seem like what the c2c does? > > well c2c has its own data output with multiline column titles, > hence it has its own separate dimension stuff, but your code > output is within the standard perf report right? single column > output.. why couldn't you use just sort_entry ? > > jirka > Hi Jiri, I've being thinking how to use sort_entry but I have some troubles. In v2, I used "struct perf_hpp_fmt" to pass extra argument. For example, static int64_t block_cycles_cov_sort(struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt, struct hist_entry *left, struct hist_entry *right) { struct block_fmt *block_fmt = container_of(fmt, ...); struct report *rep = block_fmt->rep; ... } But if I just use sort_entry, I can't pass extra argument (it's not a good idea to add more fields in struct hist_entry). int64_t sort__xxx_sort(struct hist_entry *left, struct hist_entry *right) And for entry print it's similar, I can't pass extra argument in. In v2, static int block_cycles_pct_entry(struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt, struct perf_hpp *hpp, struct hist_entry *he) { struct block_fmt *block_fmt = container_of(fmt,...); struct report *rep = block_fmt->rep; ... } But for se_snprintf, I can't pass extra argument in. hist_entry__xxx_snprintf(struct hist_entry *he, char *bf, size_t size, unsigned int width) That's why I feel headache for just using the sort_entry. :( Thanks Jin Yao