Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:51:45 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
        Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/27] perf parse-events: Support hardware events
 inside PMU
Message-ID: <YFM+0e+mPL036gyY@krava>
References: <20210311070742.9318-1-yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
 <20210311070742.9318-12-yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
 <YEu9usdFl6VSnOQ7@krava>
 <c40d6187-9391-40de-aea8-7389bb369555@linux.intel.com>
 <YE+balbLkG5RL7Lu@krava>
 <fd88f214-f0a4-87bc-ef52-ee750ca13a8d@linux.intel.com>
 <YFC615nTdUR/aLw5@krava>
 <65624432-2752-8381-d299-9b48ec508406@linux.intel.com>
 <YFHUo1I8cYf502qJ@krava>
 <b0ec8d05-acbc-3021-2e74-684d119de2db@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b0ec8d05-acbc-3021-2e74-684d119de2db@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 08:17:52PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:

SNIP

> > > 
> > > For example,
> > > 
> > > perf stat -e '{cpu_core/cycles/,cpu_core/instructions/}' -e '{cpu_atom/cycles/,cpu_atom/instructions/}'
> > > 
> > > This usage is common and reasonable. So I think we may need to support pmu style events.
> > 
> > sure, but we don't support 'cpu/cycles/' but we support 'cpu/cpu-cycles/'
> > why do you insist on supporting cpu_core/cycles/ ?
> > 
> > jirka
> > 
> 
> I'm OK to only support 'cpu_core/cpu-cycles/' or 'cpu_atom/cpu-cycles/'. But
> what would we do for cache event?
> 
> 'perf stat -e LLC-loads' is OK, but 'perf stat -e cpu/LLC-loads/' is not supported currently.

ugh, I keep forgetting those ;-)

> 
> For hybrid platform, user may only want to enable the LLC-loads on core CPUs
> or on atom CPUs. That's reasonable. While if we don't support the pmu style
> event, how to satisfy this requirement?
> 
> If we can support the pmu style event, we can also use the same way for
> cpu_core/cycles/. At least it's not a bad thing, right? :)

right, it's probably best to use the pmu/LLC-.../ for this,
I'll check the patch again

jirka