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 S1754895AbbG1AnJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:43:09 -0400
Received: from mail7.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.42]:33314 "EHLO
	mail7.hitachi.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754656AbbG1AnH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:43:07 -0400
Message-ID: <55B6D013.4080401@hitachi.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:42:59 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Organization: Hitachi, Ltd., Japan
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
CC: Hemant Kumar <hemant@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH perf/core v2 00/16] perf-probe --cache and SDT support
References: <20150715091352.8915.87480.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <55A7215F.40803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <55A874C6.5030202@hitachi.com> <55AFA4E2.4040801@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <55B0E872.8030206@hitachi.com> <20150723140127.GD3152@kernel.org> <55B11555.9060100@hitachi.com> <20150724075519.GA19672@sejong> <20150724155237.GA300@kernel.org> <20150727140320.GF22022@danjae.kornet> <20150727151648.GB20963@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150727151648.GB20963@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2015/07/28 0:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:52:37PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> If we agreed to extend the event format, I'd like to keep it simple
>>>> and to make it optional to add more info (separated by colon?).
>>>
>>> Reading this again after writing what is below: my suggestion is to use
>>> @, see rationale below.
>>
>> I'm fine with using @.
>  
>>> I would show what desambiguates them in non verbose mode, i.e., the
>>> above would be:
>>>
>>>    $ perf list sdt_foo:bar
>>>
>>>    sdt_foo:bar:dir1/libfoo1.so   [User SDT event]
>>>    sdt_foo:bar:dir2/libfoo1.so   [User SDT event]
>>>    sdt_foo:bar:libfoo2.so        [User SDT event]
>>
>> Then it should use @ here too.
> 
> Right.
>  
> <SNIP>
> 
>>> 	That would be something like this:
> 
>>>     perf record -e sdt_foo:bar@0x1234
> 
>>> 	Because in this case the 'at' meaning of '@' makes sense, i.e.
>>> use the std_foo:bar event at the DSO with a 0x1234 buildid?
>>
>> IMHO @ looks perfect for pathnames but I don't know about build-id as
>> it can be thought as some address.  Anyway I still think @ is a good
>> choice though. ;-)
> 
> Yeah, perhaps we need further clarification? I.e. something like:
> 
> 	sdt_foo:bar:libfoo1.so@buildid(0x1234)
> 
> Or something else, perhaps shorter, that clarifies that it is a buildid?

Hmm, Do we really need such additional buildid? Even though, I think
the build id should have different delimiter, like '%', as below.

sdt_foo:bar@libfoo1.so%buildid


Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Linux Technology Research Center, System Productivity Research Dept.
Center for Technology Innovation - Systems Engineering
Hitachi, Ltd., Research & Development Group
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com