From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753612AbdBISrz (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:47:55 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53254 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751235AbdBISrw (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:47:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:37:55 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andi Kleen , acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] perf, tools, stat: Output JSON MetricExpr metric Message-ID: <20170209183755.GA17928@krava> References: <20170128020345.19007-1-andi@firstfloor.org> <20170128020345.19007-11-andi@firstfloor.org> <20170208113134.GE10639@krava> <20170208215103.GP26852@two.firstfloor.org> <20170209113937.GA7455@krava> <20170209170035.GA15301@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170209170035.GA15301@tassilo.jf.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:37:58 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:00:35AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:39:37PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > and this makes me think, that this is not the right approach > > > > adding extra copy of an event when you want to add new expression? > > I don't want to add new expressions. > > I don't even need arbitrary expressions, just DividedBy > to get percentages, you just forced me to do the expressions. > > > > why can't we have another list/file of those expressions > > The last time I proposed separate files Ingo vetoed it. > He wanted everything built in. sure, he veto it for event files.. expressions could be built in same way as we have events now > > from which point we could point and configure events we need > > If you want full flexibility you can use your perf stat report > approach, or what most people do is to just run a script/spreadsheet > over the the -x; output. This all continues to work. > > This is just a minimum approach to provide some convenience > integrated with the event list to provide something similar > as the built in expressions in stat-shadow. > > It's not trying to build the great perf scripting language. yea I understand that but can't ack that based on the points I descibed in my other email jirka