Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Support to display the LBR data in tui mode | From | "Jin, Yao" <> | Date | Sat, 24 Feb 2018 09:40:02 +0800 |
| |
On 2/23/2018 11:29 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:25:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:35:58PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote: >>> Unlike the perf report interactive annotate mode, the perf annotate >>> doesn't display the LBR data. > >>> perf record -b ... >>> perf annotate function > >>> It should show IPC/cycle, but it doesn't. > >> There is far more than IPC/cycle for the LBR data, so this Changelog is >> misleading. > >> Also, I think that this patch goes the wrong way, we should reduce the >> divergence of the various modes, not make it worse. > > Right, Peter, what would you think if I made --stdio use the same > routines used to format the TUI, i.e. stdio would be equal to the TUI > modulo de navigation/jump arrows, etc. > > We would have switches to provide the TUI output options that make sense > for non-interactive mode, like: > > J Toggle showing number of jump sources on targets > o Toggle disassembler output/simplified view > s Toggle source code view > t Circulate percent, total period, samples view > k Toggle line numbers >
Hi Arnaldo, looks your idea is very similar as my idea. In my understanding, for example, we may provide switch to tui routine like annotate_browser__write() and use fprintf() to replace ui_browser__printf()/ui_browser_write__xxx() if switch is on for stdio.
Is that your idea?
For this approach, I think, the benefit is we can reuse most of existing code but the disadvantage is we have to mix tui and stdio up.
Thanks Jin Yao
> And would still have e --stdio-classic (deprecated), that we would keep > for a while. > > I think that this new mode with "dissassembler output" would be the same > as the current --stdio, I'll check. > > To further clarify, this wouldn't use any ncurses/slang TUI code, just > plain printf with things formatted using what is used now for the TUI > mode. > > This way there would never be any drift amongst the output modes and we > would have less work to do when implementing new stuff like this LBR > case. > > What do you think? > > - Arnaldo >
| |