[PATCH V5 06/14] perf mem: Factor out a function to generate sort order

From: kan.liang@linux.intel.com
To: peterz@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: eranian@google.com, jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
	ak@linux.intel.com, luto@amacapital.net, vbabka@suse.cz,
	will.deacon@arm.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH V5 06/14] perf mem: Factor out a function to generate sort order
Date: Fri,  8 Feb 2019 09:55:01 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1549648509-12704-6-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1549648509-12704-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>

From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>

Now, "--phys-data" is the only option which impacts the sort order.
A simple "if else" is enough to handle the option. But there will be
more options added, e.g. "--data-page-size", which also impact the sort
order. The code will become too complex to be maintained.

Divide the sort order string into several small pieces.
The first piece is always the default sort string for LOAD/STORE.
Appends the specific sort string if related option is applied.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
---

No changes since V4

 tools/perf/builtin-mem.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-mem.c b/tools/perf/builtin-mem.c
index 57393e9..0647bd7 100644
--- a/tools/perf/builtin-mem.c
+++ b/tools/perf/builtin-mem.c
@@ -273,11 +273,35 @@ static int report_raw_events(struct perf_mem *mem)
 	perf_session__delete(session);
 	return ret;
 }
+static char *get_sort_order(struct perf_mem *mem)
+{
+	bool has_extra_options = mem->phys_addr ? true : false;
+	char sort[128];
+
+	/*
+	 * there is no weight (cost) associated with stores, so don't print
+	 * the column
+	 */
+	if (!(mem->operation & MEM_OPERATION_LOAD)) {
+		strcpy(sort, "--sort=mem,sym,dso,symbol_daddr,"
+			     "dso_daddr,tlb,locked");
+	} else if (has_extra_options) {
+		strcpy(sort, "--sort=local_weight,mem,sym,dso,symbol_daddr,"
+			     "dso_daddr,snoop,tlb,locked");
+	} else
+		return NULL;
+
+	if (mem->phys_addr)
+		strcat(sort, ",phys_daddr");
+
+	return strdup(sort);
+}
 
 static int report_events(int argc, const char **argv, struct perf_mem *mem)
 {
 	const char **rep_argv;
 	int ret, i = 0, j, rep_argc;
+	char *new_sort_order;
 
 	if (mem->dump_raw)
 		return report_raw_events(mem);
@@ -291,20 +315,9 @@ static int report_events(int argc, const char **argv, struct perf_mem *mem)
 	rep_argv[i++] = "--mem-mode";
 	rep_argv[i++] = "-n"; /* display number of samples */
 
-	/*
-	 * there is no weight (cost) associated with stores, so don't print
-	 * the column
-	 */
-	if (!(mem->operation & MEM_OPERATION_LOAD)) {
-		if (mem->phys_addr)
-			rep_argv[i++] = "--sort=mem,sym,dso,symbol_daddr,"
-					"dso_daddr,tlb,locked,phys_daddr";
-		else
-			rep_argv[i++] = "--sort=mem,sym,dso,symbol_daddr,"
-					"dso_daddr,tlb,locked";
-	} else if (mem->phys_addr)
-		rep_argv[i++] = "--sort=local_weight,mem,sym,dso,symbol_daddr,"
-				"dso_daddr,snoop,tlb,locked,phys_daddr";
+	new_sort_order = get_sort_order(mem);
+	if (new_sort_order)
+		rep_argv[i++] = new_sort_order;
 
 	for (j = 1; j < argc; j++, i++)
 		rep_argv[i] = argv[j];
-- 
2.7.4

