[PATCH v4 01/10] tools/perf: support parsing parameterized events

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:06:27AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:25:20PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > Jiri Olsa [jolsa at redhat.com] wrote:
> > | On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:27:15PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > | > From: Cody P Schafer <cody at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > | > 
> > | > Enable event specification like:
> > | > 
> > | > 	pmu/event_name,param1=0x1,param2=0x4/
> > | > 
> > | > Assuming that
> > | > 
> > | > 	/sys/bus/event_source/devices/pmu/events/event_name
> > | > 
> > | > Contains something like
> > | > 
> > | > 	param2=foo,bar=1,param1=baz
> > | 
> > | hum, so what happened to the '?' ... AFAIU from out last discussion,
> > | you wanted to mark terms which are mandatory and user must provide
> > | values for them.. and I thought the decision was to have following
> > | alias record:
> > | 
> > |   $ cat /sys/bus/event_source/devices/pmu/events/event_name
> > |   param2=?,bar=1,param1=?
> > | 
> > | while perf would scream if any of param1/2 wasnt filled like for:
> > |   pmu/event_name,param1=0x1/
> > 
> > Sorry, I meant to make perf list consistent with sysfs.
> > 
> > Consider these two sysfs entries:
> > 
> > 	$ cat HPM_0THRD_NON_IDLE_CCYC__PHYS_CORE 
> > 	domain=0x2,offset=0xe0,starting_index=core,lpar=0x0
> > 
> > 	$ cat HPM_0THRD_NON_IDLE_CCYC__VCPU_HOME_CORE 
> > 	domain=0x3,offset=0xe0,starting_index=vcpu,lpar=sibling_guest_id
> > 
> > In the first one, starting_index refers to a 'core' while in the second
> > it refers to a vcpu. This serves as a "hint" for the parameter's meaning.
> > 
> > By replacing both with 'starting_index=?' we lose that hint.
> > 
> > Should we fix both sysfs and 'perf list' to say
> > 
> > 	starting_index=?core 
> 
> Peter, Ingo,
> any opinions on this? Overall explanation is in here:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141158688307356&w=2

Consistency is good, and you indeed need to indicate it is a parameter.
I'm not entirely sure about ?core, but I suppose its easy to parse and
clear enough to read.

So the typical optional argument syntax would be like $arg or <type>
like. But overall I have no objection as long as you keep the lot
consistent and parsable.