From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756981AbcAUESF (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:18:05 -0500 Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:59418 "EHLO lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752651AbcAUESC (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:18:02 -0500 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org X-Original-SENDERIP: 165.244.98.203 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.227.17 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:17:57 +0900 From: Namhyung Kim To: Taeung Song CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Olsa , LKML , David Ahern , Stephane Eranian , Andi Kleen , Wang Nan , Don Zickus , Pekka Enberg , Moinuddin Quadri Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 00/17] perf tools: Add support for hierachy view (v2) Message-ID: <20160121041757.GE10179@sejong> References: <1452960197-5323-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> <20160119205941.GG27085@kernel.org> <20160120003451.GB18796@sejong> <569F3C09.8070903@gmail.com> <20160120150819.GB23604@danjae.kornet> <569FB731.6060504@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <569FB731.6060504@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on LGEKRMHUB03/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2016/01/21 13:17:59, Serialize by Router on LGEKRMHUB03/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2016/01/21 13:17:59, Serialize complete at 2016/01/21 13:17:59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks, Namhyung