On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 17:08 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:50:08AM -0400, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 16:35 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > @@ -740,6 +740,12 @@ parse_event_modifier(const char **strp, struct perf_event_attr *attr)
> > > if (!exclude)
> > > exclude = eu = ek = eh = 1;
> > > eh = 0;
> > > + } else if (*str == 'G') {
> > > + eg = 0;
> > > + ehst = 1;
> > > + } else if (*str == 'H') {
> > > + eg = 1;
> > > + ehst = 0;
> >
> > This doesn't match the existing exclude logic, also eH and eG come to
> > mind.
>
> OK, eH and eG seems like a better choice. Regarding the logic I
> explictly decided to do it this way. The reason is that guest/host
> counting is orthogonal to user/kernel/hv counting. You can decide to
> only count guest-kernel for example. And if a user just specifies
> -e cycles:G this would automatically exlucde user and kernel counting.
> This didn't make sense to me so I decided to keep the logic seperate for
> guest/host exclusions.
OK, so the changelog lacked that bit of information ;-)
How about you do something like:
+ } else if (*str == 'G') {
+ if (!excl_GH)
+ excl_GH = eH = eG = 1;
+ eG = 0;
+ } else if (*str == 'H') {
+ if (!excl_GH)
+ excl_GH = eH = eG = 1;
+ eH = 0;
Which mirrors the existing logic but keeps it orthogonal?
Hmm,. does this nicely integrate with exclude_hv? that seems to want to
be grouped with G/H.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
