Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/17] perf tools: Add support for hierachy view (v2)

From: Taeung Song <taeung.dev@gmail.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Moinuddin Quadri <moin18@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/17] perf tools: Add support for hierachy view (v2)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:58:42 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A06582.7000509@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160121041757.GE10179@sejong>

Hi, Namhyung

On 01/21/2016 01:17 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Taeung,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:34:57AM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
>> On 01/21/2016 12:08 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:49:29PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
>>>> On 01/20/2016 09:34 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:59:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, tested, this is really nice, I think it should be the default, from
>>>>>> where to drill down, we could have a '--no-hierarchy', Ingo?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, we already have --no-hierarchy (as a side effect of having
>>>>> --hierarchy) but I don't want to change the default now since existing
>>>>> users will complain.  Now we have 'tips' in the perf report browser,
>>>>> maybe it's enough to add a line to suggest to use it (and it's already
>>>>> done by this patchset).  I remember the time we changed default for
>>>>> '--children' and many people complained about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> We maybe change the default later but I think it's better to have some
>>>>> time to people can play with it and find it useful. :)  And, as always,
>>>>> we can have a config option to control the default.
>>>>
>>>> If adding this config option,
>>>> can this be included in 'hist' section ?
>>>> If it isn't, 'report' and 'top' section ?
>>>> i.e.
>>>>
>>>> [report]
>>>>      hierarchy = true
>>>> [top]
>>>>      hierarchy = false
>>>
>>> Either is fine.  But as we already have report.children and
>>> top.children, I'd follow the convention.  Also I think we should set
>>> priority of the two configs - children and hierarchy.  IMHO hierarchy
>>> should be considered first.
>>>
>>> Or maybe we could have 'report.output-default' being one of
>>> 'hierarchy', 'children', or 'normal'.  This way we can set the default
>>> behavior easily including possible future changes.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, IMHO I think the latter is better than the former.
>> If using 'report.output-default' instead of 'report.children'
>> and 'report.hierarchy' etc integrating the configs,
>> it seems to be tidy.
>
> OK
>
>> Whatever this config variables will be set as,
>> after this patchset are merged I'll ask about this configs, again.
>
> I'll add you in the CC list wrt config changes.
>

Thank you!
Taeung